Misplaced Pages

Talk:Transcendental Meditation: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:16, 16 August 2010 editEdith Sirius Lee (talk | contribs)667 edits →NPOV violation of lead← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:49, 14 August 2024 edit undoAndyTheGrump (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers54,017 edits →Yogic Flying: reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}} {{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Notice|header=Other subpages|
<inputbox>
*]
bgcolor=transparent
*]
type=fulltext
prefix=Talk:Transcendental Meditation *]}}
{{British English}}
break=yes
{{afd-merged-from|Transcendental Meditation research|Transcendental Meditation research|15 November 2013}}
width=60
{{afd-merged-from|TM-Sidhi program|TM-Sidhi program|14 November 2013}}
searchbuttonlabel=Search Transcendental Meditation talk archives
{{FailedGA|05:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)|topic=Philosophy and religion|page=1}}
</inputbox>
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{Rational Skepticism|class=C|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=Start}} {{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=Start|importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Mid}}
{{WPReligion|class=Start|importance=Mid|NRM=yes|NRMImp=High}} {{WikiProject Religion|importance=mid|NRM=yes|NRMImp=Top}}
{{WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement|class=Start|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Hinduism|importance=mid}}
}}
{{WikiProject Yoga|importance=mid}}
{{Controversial3}}
{{WikiProject Psychology}}
{{auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=7}}
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive index|mask=Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=no|indexhere=<indexhere>|template=<template location>}}
{{Controversial-issues}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive index |mask=Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=no |indexhere=yes |template=
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 33 |counter = 43
|minthreadsleft = 6 |minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(7d)
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
Other subpages:
{{connected contributors
*]
|User1= Littleolive oil |U1-EH=yes |U1-otherlinks=
*]
|User2= TimidGuy |U2-EH=yes |U2-otherlinks=
*]
}}
*]

== References ==

{{Reflist|close=1}}

== RfC: How to best summarize the scientific literature on TM ==

{{rfctag|sci}}
We have been having an ongoing disagreement over how to best summarize the scientific literature on TM. I have proposed the following to replace "Scientific studies published in peer review journals have examined the effects of the technique. A 2007 review of Transcendental Meditation reported that the definitive ] of meditation cannot be determined as the bulk of scientific evidence examined was of poor quality. A 2006 Cochrane review found that TM was equivalent to relaxation therapy for the treatment of ]." Others may also make proposals. Recent discussion have taken place: , , and on the .

Addendum added by involved editor: All commenting editors please make sure to read the research section in the article to make sure proposed leads summarize that section per ](] (]) 14:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

===Suggestion 1===
Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education.
<ref>{{cite book|author=Ospina MB, Bond TK, Karkhaneh M, Tjosvold L, Vandermeer B, Liang Y, Bialy L, Hooton N, Buscemi N, Dryden DM, Klassen TP.|url= http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf|title= Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research|publisher= ]|page=4|date=June 2007 |quote=A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients}}</ref>
<ref name=Cochrane10>{{cite journal |author=Krisanaprakornkit T, Ngamjarus C, Witoonchart C, Piyavhatkul N |title=Meditation therapies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) |journal=Cochrane Database Syst Rev |volume=6 |issue= |pages=CD006507 |year=2010 |pmid=20556767 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD006507.pub2 |url= |quote =As a result of the limited number of included studies, the small sample sizes and the high risk of bias, we are unable to draw any conclusions regarding the effectiveness of meditation therapy for ADHD.}}</ref>
<ref name=Cochrane06>{{cite journal|author=Krisanaprakornkit T, Krisanaprakornkit W, Piyavhatkul N, Laopaiboon M |title=Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders |journal=Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews |volume=|issue=1 |pages=CD004998 |year=2006 |pmid=16437509 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD004998.pub2 |ref=harv| quote=The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite journal |author=Ospina MB, Bond K, Karkhaneh M, ''et al.'' |title=Meditation practices for health: state of the research |journal=Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) |volume= |issue=155 |pages=1–263 |year=2007 |month=June |pmid=17764203 |page=4 |url= |ref=harv| quote = A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake}}</ref> It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation as the quality of research has a lack of methodological rigor.
<ref>{{cite journal |author=Ospina MB, Bond K, Karkhaneh M, ''et al.'' |title=Meditation practices for health: state of the research |journal=Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) |volume=|issue=155 |pages=1–263 |year=2007 |month=June |pmid=17764203 |doi= |url= |ref=harv |quote=Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence.}}</ref>
<ref name=Cochrane10/>
<ref name=Cochrane06/> Part of this difficulty is due to the fact that many studies appear to have been conducted by devotees or researchers at universities tied to the Maharishi and on subjects with a favorable opinions of TM.
<ref>{{cite journal |author=Canter PH, Ernst E |title=Insufficient evidence to conclude whether or not Transcendental Meditation decreases blood pressure: results of a systematic review of randomized clinical trials |journal=Journal of Hypertension |volume=22 |issue=11 |pages=2049–54 |year=2004 |month=November |pmid=15480084|url=http://meta.wkhealth.com/pt/pt-core/template-journal/lwwgateway/media/landingpage.htm?issn=0263-6352&volume=22&issue=11&spage=2049 |ref=harv| quote = All the randomized clinical trials of TM for the control of blood pressure published to date have important methodological weaknesses and are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization.}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite journal |author=Canter PH, Ernst E |title=The cumulative effects of Transcendental Meditation on cognitive function--a systematic review of randomised controlled trials |journal=Wien. Klin. Wochenschr. |volume=115 |issue=21-22 |pages=758–66 |year=2003 |month=November |pmid=14743579 |doi= |url= |quote = All 4 positive trials recruited subjects from among people favourably predisposed towards TM, and used passive control procedures... The association observed between positive outcome, subject selection procedure and control procedure suggests that the large positive effects reported in 4 trials result from an expectation effect. The claim that TM has a specific and cumulative effect on cognitive function is not supported by the evidence from randomised controlled trials.}}</ref>
{{reflist}}

] (] · ] · ]) 01:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

====Suggestion 1: Comments from involved users====
#I feel this is an better summary than we currently have. It is the best avaliable articles on the subject matter at hand. I have added the lines of texts used under "quote" in the references to make it easier to determine how each sentence is supported.] (] · ] · ]) 07:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
#I'm no scientist, but I have read some of the cited papers. This draft seems to be a good summary of their relevant findings. The choice of studies appears to be in keeping with the guidelines at ], using the best available sources while avoiding excess weight on fringe views. This draft is easier to read than the existing text in the intro and would be a significant improvement to the article, from what I can tell. I hope this is something that can be resolved without turning it into a major fight. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 08:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
#Doc, you can't make stuff up, as you have. And you can't completely ignore NPOV, as you have. Please show me the clinical research that compares Transcendental Meditation with relaxation. There are only three randomized controlled trials in the citations you give that compare TM with relaxation, and the AHRQ meta-anlaysis of two of them found that TM had a statistically and clinically significant effect on blood pressure compared to relaxation. The only generalization one could make about relaxation based on the research you cite is that TM has found a health benefit compared to relaxation. ] (]) 10:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
#::Ah these are two of the most prestigious research organizations in the world. They are systematic reviews of the literature. They looked at nearly everything that was published. I provide direct quotes from all the sources to support these statements.] (] · ] · ]) 11:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
#:::I don't understand. For example, you quote a finding that uses health education as a comparator. How does that allow you to make a generalization regarding relaxation? ] (]) 11:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
#::::Agree and changed. ] (] · ] · ]) 11:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
#:::::The problem remains that there's no support for the first statement, and the second is one-sided, as is the rest. Remember the feedback that we got at RSN. The lead is supposed to be a fair summary of what's in the article. This is not. ] (]) 11:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
#::::::Let agree to disagree and wait for outside opinions. ] (] · ] · ]) 11:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
#:::::::This isn't rocket science. The lead must summarize what's in the article. If it doesn't, it must be considered poorly written in a technical way, and can end up, as is the case here, being biased because it omits information. Simple.(] (]) 14:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC))
#The first and second sentences use the same sources (the first and the fourth references are about the same meta-analysis, a meta-analysis done for the AHRQ). The first sentence is only an interpretation against TM of the second sentence: if no conclusion can be drawn, then no advantage has been found. However, only the second sentence is the main conclusion of these sources. In particular, the AHRQ meta-analysis was also published in a peer-reviewed journal which did not mention at all that TM has no advantage over other approaches. The two references provided by Doc James for the AHRQ meta-analysis were not peer-reviewed. If the first sentence was an important conclusion of the meta-analysis, why it is not included in anyway in the peer-reviewed version? Similarly, the Cochrane review only says that no conclusion can be drawn. Doc James refers (not even correctly) to a conclusion of a 1980 paper that was included in this review, but it was not the conclusion of the review. The last sentence is a subjective point of view that is highly controversial and assume that the peer-reviewed journals, the editors and the reviewers, did not properly review the studies on TM that were submitted to them. Though it may happen, it may happen against as much as in support of TM. A response was published (I think in the same journal) to rebut this controversial viewpoint. This controversy has no place in the Intro, even if we presented the two sides, certainly not if we present only one side. The main problem, however, with this proposal is that it excludes important point of views about the physiological and health effects of TM that are found in other reliable systematic reviews that are published in peer-reviewed journals. It is totally one sided. ] (]) 16:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
::One again all sources that I have used are from the most highly respected evidence based research organizations in the world. I do see that the science is being less and less well represented in the article.] (] · ] · ]) 21:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
::: The AHRQ should not have more weight than other respectable peer reviewed journals. In fact, since it acted as the editor while it was the source of funding for the report and moreover used a non standard peer-review process, it should have less weight. ] (]) 12:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

====Suggestion 1: Comments from uninvolved users====
Sources appear to be of the sort promoted by MEDRS and the summary neutral. I '''support''' the change, as it is much clearer than the original text and provides an accurate summary.] (]) 13:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
:In reply to the addendum added by another user, I agree that the proposed suggestion #1 does not follow explicitly ] in summarizing the research section; clearly the way to resolve this problem is to update the research section to follow it. I agree with the proposer of the RfC that most weight in research section should come from large, independent reviews (i.e. Cochrane reviews, the AHRQ review) with less weight to other smaller reviews. ] (]) 16:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
::Are you suggesting we change the article to suit a lead? (] (]) 17:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC))
:::No, I'm suggesting that the article needs revision, and this lead would be a good template for that change. ] (]) 17:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

::::Sorry but that's backwards. We need to look at the research in a holistic way, be aware of it, in its entirety then draft the article. Choosing a lead with out that knowledge can only create inaccuracy and subsequent slant and bias. A lead can only be a template if we have a comprehensive view first. (] (]) 17:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC))
:::::All medical issues, per MEDRS should be based on high quality reviews (such as Cochrane, etc). That ''is'' the comprehensive view. Both the lead and the article can be adjusted at the same time.] (]) 17:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::: In support to Yobol, I must say that a Misplaced Pages article is not static and both the Intro and the body of the article can change. I don't think we can use ] to fix the content of the article. In support to Littleolive, I must say that, in general, it is common to first write the body of an article, without worry about the Intro, and write the Intro after. Therefore, I would suggest that those who edited the Intro against ] in the past should not repeat that again.

:::::: Where Yobol does not have a point at all is when he says that we should exclude the meta-analyses that are not published in Chochrane review or the AHRQ. In particular, this excludes peer reviewed journals that cover traditional medicine. Modern medicine is more recent and thus complementary in a sense to traditional medicine. Traditional medicine might not have a large weight in some specific governmental agencies and in large pharmacological corporations, but it has a large weight in the population and is supported by very respectable governmental agencies. It is used a lot. It makes no sense in an article about TM not to give an equal weight to these other reliable peer review journals. Besides, excellent meta-analyses, other than those in Cochrane Review and AHRQ, were published in journals covering a more general area than traditional medicine. Why should we exclude any of these excellent meta-analyses, which also respect WP:MEDRS? The specific scales used to exclude studies in Cochrane and AHRQ are not MEDRS policy. ] (]) 18:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Yes though I would start with the lead and than move onto the body of the text.] (] · ] · ]) 22:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::At no point did I say we exclude everything except Cochrane and the AHRQ analysis. I said the highest quality secondary sources that are independent should be given the most weight (both in terms of coverage and our wording and summary) and form the framework of the section on medical researech; other MEDRS compliant secondary sources should be added to supplement this, with due weight (if they are not independent, if they are smaller, etc.) ] (]) 23:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
{{hat|bizarre dialogue about twisting other editors' words}}
::::::::It has been brought to my attention that an editor may have somehow interpreted my position to have "changed". If was in reference to me, let me clarify that this is not the case, and that my support for the lead as noted in the RfC continues. I also note that current version of the lead with attribution is less encyclopedic and possibly runs afoul of ].] (]) 20:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::::: I had the following in mind:
::::::::: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&diff=376686243&oldid=376684444 and then
::::::::: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&diff=376742719&oldid=376742405. However, if you are telling us that you were fixed in your opinion and there was no point to further discuss, then there is nothing I can add to that. ] (]) 01:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
{{outdent}}I would appreciate it if you would stop mischaracterizing my words - this is the second time in only one thread on one talk page you have done this about what I have said now. It is clear from those diffs that I misunderstood the topic of the discussion in that section outside the RfC (i.e. excluding the study from the lead vs. article) and I appropriately corrected my stance after I realized my mistake. No where did I voice any change in my stance on the lead, which is the topic of discussion in this RfC. I will also add that no where have I said my opinion is "fixed"; quite the contrary, I was reading this talk page to see if there was anything that would make me adjust my opinion on the subject. Clearly, there has not, and I continue to support the lead as proposed in this RfC as a significant improvement of the lead that was present at the time the RfC was introduced (and, frankly, the current lead). ] (]) 01:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
: Well, I am sorry for the confusion, but I knew that your opinion was most likely not fixed. I said "'''If''' ...", and, of course, I expected you to say that your opinion was not fixed. In fact, my point is that it was not fixed and the new elements that you added were highly significant (in my opinion) as far as the paragraph on Research in the Intro is concerned. People will be able to judge by themselves. They have the diffs. ] (]) 02:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, and the diffs clearly show I was concerned that an editor was saying a properly peer-reviewed journal article should be removed/kept out of from the wikipedia article (not the lead). If you expect someone not to have a fixed opinion, then you probably shouldn't be commenting on them as if they did, and therefore seeming to imply that they are in fact fixed. Some would consider that very rude and not conducive to a collaborative environment. ] (]) 02:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
::: Yobol, if I say "If A then B", I do not mean that A is true. It actually means the opposite when B is non sense. So, I did not try to imply a bit that your opinion was fixed. It is also clear that it was not to my advantage at all to say that it was fixed. In fact, again, now that you mentioned that it had changed, thank you, I can add that your added points were highly significant for the Rfc issue. OK, I see that you did not like my style, but I did not attack you or said anything incorrect about you. ] (]) 03:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
::::I have no particular interest as to what is an "advantage" to anyone in this dispute, I am only providing my opinion on what is best supported by wikipedia policies. I have already explained I find it very rude to suggest, even by saying appending a hypothetical "if", to my motives or positions, so I would appreciate it if you would just drop the subject instead of trying to justify it. As to what you think has "changed", I have no idea what you are talking about. I have made it explicitly clear that my opinion has not changed on the RfC, and that I do not believe my comments that you reference in the diffs above are particularly relevant to the RfC as I was speaking about the article, not the lead, and even said "I have no strong feelings either way". '''Please stop putting words in my mouth.''' It is getting to the point to being disruptive. ] (]) 03:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
::::: I really feel that your added points were highly significant for the Rfc. You may honestly disagree because you don't understand the context, but your points stand by themselves and every one can decide for himself by looking at the diffs. So, we can agree to disagree. ] (]) 03:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::: As the person who actually wrote the comments, I guess it is my duty to say that I do not think they are particularly relevant to the RfC at all, ''as I state in the diff'' and multiple times here, ''in this RfC''. I find it very odd that someone is arguing with me about what ''I'' mean about what ''I'' wrote, but I guess it's par for the course on this talk page (and part of the reason I have not contributed more to this page - this type of behavior is toxic and not what I want to experience on wikipedia). ] (]) 03:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::: Please take it easy. I maintain a peaceful and honest dialogue. I don't understand why you mention "toxic", etc. Some others that know the context can consider that your points are highly relevant. First, because the article is highly relevant to the lead. I assure you that your point about the article is very important for the lead in this context. Second, "no strong feeling either way" is already a statement, different than, for example, "clearly, it should be this way." This other point was also in my opinion a strong improvement. So, please take it easy. ] (]) 05:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::::I consider having my own words twisted around into meaning something other than what I actually wrote, despite my corrections on multiple occasions, a toxic atmosphere for a collaborative environment (I count three occasions in this one thread alone!). That says to me the person doing the twisting does not want to collaborate, but wants to do anything to "win" the argument. It's a wonder anyone actually sticks it out in this environment, but God bless those who do. In other words, I have no desire to carry on this "conversation" forward with you, as it is very unpleasant. My stance on the RfC stands as I originally indicated. Cheers. ] (]) 05:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
{{hab}}
*'''Support'''. This proposed text summarises the article content accurately and is more compliant with ].--]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 20:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

===Suggestion 2===
TM is among the most widely researched meditation techniques.<ref>Murphy M, Donovan S, Taylor E. The Physical and Psychological Effects of Meditation: A review of Contemporary Research with a Comprehensive Bibliography 1931-1996. Sausalito, California: Institute of Noetic Sciences; 1997.</ref><ref>{{Cite book | last1 = Benson | first1 = Herbert | last2 = Klipper | first2 = Miriam Z. | title = The relaxation respons | year = 2001 | publisher = Quill | location = New York, NY | isbn = 978-0-380-81595-1 | page = 61|url=http://books.google.com/?id=TJDGTP9Sa5UC&pg=PA61&dq=transcendental+meditation&q=transcendental%20meditation }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book | first1=Stephen T. |last1=Sinatra|first2=James C. |last2=Roberts| last3 = Zucker | first3 = Martin | title = Reverse Heart Disease Now: Stop Deadly Cardiovascular Plaque Before It's Too Late | date = 2007-12-20| publisher = Wiley | location = | isbn = 978-0-470-22878-4 | page = 192|url=http://books.google.com/?id=4TfJqNA8sOIC&pg=PA192&dq=transcendental+meditationlr=#v=onepage&q=transcendental%20meditation }}</ref> Most of the research is preliminary and firm conclusions can't be drawn.<ref>Ospina MB, Bond K, Karkhaneh M, et al. (June 2007). "Meditation practices for health: state of the research". Evidence Report/technology Assessment (155): 1–263</ref> Some studies have found specific physiological effects,<ref name=Dakwar09/><ref name="Wien Klin Wochenschr."/> and clinical research suggests a range of effects on health and mental well-being.<ref name=Anderson08>{{cite journal |author=Anderson JW, Liu C, Kryscio RJ |title=Blood pressure response to transcendental meditation: a meta-analysis |journal=Am. J. Hypertens. |volume=21 |issue=3 |pages=310–6 |year=2008 |month=March |pmid=18311126 |doi=10.1038/ajh.2007.65 |url= |ref=harv}}</ref><ref name=peads09>{{cite journal |author=Black DS, Milam J, Sussman S |title=Sitting-Meditation Interventions Among Youth: A Review of Treatment Efficacy |journal=Pediatrics |volume= 124|issue= |pages= e532|year=2009 |month=August |pmid=19706568 |doi=10.1542/peds.2008-3434 |url= |ref=harv}}</ref>
{{reflist|close=1}}
====Suggestion 2: Comments from involved users====
#The first ref by Murphy is from 1997. The Dakwar ref looked at "The emerging role of meditation in addressing psychiatric illness" not physiological effects. The next ref says that physiological effects are NOT supported by the evidence. "The association observed between positive outcome, subject selection procedure and control procedure suggests that the large positive effects reported in 4 trials result from an expectation effect. The claim that TM has a specific and cumulative effect on cognitive function is not supported by the evidence from randomised controlled trials." The Anderson ref was funded by an unrestricted gift from Howard Settle a well known TM supporter and thus not independent. The conclusion of the peads study with respect to ADHD is refuted by a 2010 Cochrane review mentioned above.] (] · ] · ]) 11:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
#:Fine, we can use Ospina for information about the extent of the research. Canter and Ernst say that there are physiological effects. Their conclusion about cognitive function is unrelated. There are many additional sources for physiological effects. If funding disqualifies a study, then we'd have to remove all the findings regarding the pharmaceutical research. The Peds mention of ADHD research isn't mentioned in this article. It cites the other findings. ] (]) 11:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
#::Were do Canter say physiological effects? I provided their text above were they said it was do to "expectation effect" . This version totally misrepresents the references used and the sum of the scientific literature. It emphasizes point that are neither here no there (the amount of research done) without sufficiently emphasizing it actually conclusions. This reads too much like a TM press release. ] (] · ] · ]) 12:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
#This looks good to me. The first and second sentences are supported by the Cochrane and AHRQ reviews. The second sentence corresponds to the main conclusion of these reviews. The third sentence is supported by other reliable systematic reviews. The whole paragraph is simple and cover all point of views. Doc James is incorrect when he says that the main conclusion of the Cochrane and AHRQ reviews is that TM is not better than relaxation. He argued before that, if no conclusion can be drawn, then no advantage has been found. This argument uses an absence of conclusion to actually suggest a negative conclusion on TM. In one study included in the Cochrane review TM showed effects comparable to biofeedback and relaxation therapy. This was a 1980 study. It is not a conclusion endorsed in the review, which endorsed no conclusion. More recent systematic reviews (and studies included therein), which did not use the strict criteria used in the Cochrane and the AHRQ reviews, support the third sentence. These other reviews are peer-reviewed. Some of their authors were independent from the TM organization. Certainly, the reviewers and the editors were independent of the TM organization. These are thus independent peer-reviewed reliable sources. The criteria of the Cochrane and AHRQ reviews are not Misplaced Pages policy. They are supported by one point of view and cannot be used to exclude other point of views and thus violate Neutral Point of View and Reliable Source . They should not be used by an editor to create its own interpretation of the sub-policy WP:MEDRS for medical claim, which does not specify any specific criteria to assess studies, but suggest that we rely on recent systematic reviews instead. Not all of them use the criteria of the Cochrane and AHRQ reviews. It is not the job of the editors to assess the criteria used in reliable peer reviewed systematic reviews. ] (]) 15:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

====Suggestion 2: Comments from uninvolved users====

== Please read sources ==


==State of the research==
In this edit and editor removed references that was supporting a statement. It is unclear if the editor read the source. In the 2010 Cochrane it spends many pages discussing the limitation of the best studies available that address the question at hand and concludes: "As a result of the limited number of included studies, the small sample sizes and the high risk of bias" and "Risk of bias in included studies: Systematic biases directly affected the validity of the included studies. See also the ’Risk of bias’ graph (Figure 1) and ’Risk of bias’ summary (Figure 2)." ] (] · ] · ]) 04:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
:Doc, Cochrane 2010 didn't look at any TM studies. No TM study was among the included studies. ] (]) 11:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


I'm adding this so we can begin to look at potential updates to the research on TM. I had requested above we not make changes until Doc James is back on Misplaced Pages or 6 months to give him a chance to be part of this. I can't enforce this of course, but I am complying with this and hope others will too. I can add results from newer research if wanted.
::Ah. What else is there to say if we are not even reading the same papers. TM is mentioned multiple times: "Five broad categories of meditation practice were identified by a group of experts using modified Delphi methodology:
mantra meditation (comprising the Transcendental Meditation
® technique (TM®), Relaxation Response (RR) and Clinically
Standardized Meditation (CSM)), mindfulness meditation
(comprising Vipassana, Zen Buddhist meditation, Mindfulnessbased
StressReduction (MBSR) andMindfulness-basedCognitive
Therapy (MBCT)), yoga, Tai Chi and Qi Gong" If you read the paper you will see mention of a couple studies specifically dealing with TM.] (] · ] · ]) 09:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
:There was no study on TM among the included studies. Cochrane only considers RCTs. There are no RCTs on TM and ADHD. The statement that you cite is in reference to research that's not on TM. Your use of this review to support the statement that TM research lacks rigor is problematic, and yet another example of your putting false information in Misplaced Pages. Please stop. ] (]) 10:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
:: As I understand it, the Cochrane review of meditation research on ADHD considered the universe of such research -which would include all TM research - and then excluded from further analysis, for lack of rigor, any study that was not a RTC. It then did further analysis of the four studies that met its criteria, only one of which it concluded had good data. Everything else (including any non-RTC studies of TM and ADHD) it dismisssed as being no better than anecdotal and unworthy of further analysis. If, as TG claims, there are no RTC's on TM and ADHD, then it is more than a bit problematic to complain about a statement that TM research on the subject lacks rigor, and accusing Doc of putting false information in the article based on that claim is an inappropriate personal attack. ] (]) 15:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
:::All very interesting, but we must use sources accurately. --] (]) 16:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
:::: As I understand it, "the universe of research" on meditation and ADHD would contain only a single study on TM : http://cie.asu.edu/volume10/number2/ . I am not aware of any other study of TM on ADHD. It is announced as an explanatory study. The authors explain that since there was only 11 students diagnosed with ADHD in the group, the size of the controlled and intervention groups would have been too small in a RCT. They used a different methodology and they did it rigorously. A preliminary study can be rigorous as long as it is presented as such. This incorrect qualification of preliminary or explanatory studies as "lacking of rigour" appears also in AHRQ and other Cochrane reviews. This issue is not specific to the 2010 Cochrane review. However, it is particularly easy to observe it in this case because there is only one study on TM Vs ADHD to look at. ] (]) 17:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


'''Problematic sources'''
(undent) They looked at all the studies and thus are able to conclude what the evidence does and does not show. And then comment on the quality of evidence. If there is no evidence they can thus say the quality of evidence is poor or lacking. Here are so more quotes. So evidence does not show that TM has a benefit in ADHD because there is little to no evidence.:
<blockquote>Some reports exist which detail the usefulness of meditation for
childrenwith ADHD.Grosswald (reported inMicucci 2005) conducted
a study in April 2004 at Chelsea School in Silver Spring,
Maryland, a private school for children with learning disabilities.
The study compared ten students with ADHD before and after
they learned and practiced Transcendental Meditation for ten
minutes twice daily for three months. Participants reported being
calmer, less distracted, less stressed and better able to control their
anger and frustration. However, there was no control/comparison
group in this study.</blockquote>


<blockquote>French 1975
French AP, Schmid AC, Ingalls E. Transcendental meditation,
altered reality testing, and behavioural change: a case report.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 1975;161(1):55–8.</blockquote>


•'''Transcendental meditation for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (2017)'''
<blockquote>Lazarus 1976
Lazarus AA. Psychiatric problems precipitated by transcendental
meditation. Psychological Reports 1976;39(2):601–2.</blockquote>


Louise HartleyAngelique MavrodarisNadine FlowersEdzard ErnstKaren Ree
] (] · ] · ]) 08:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
:Doc, the problem is that you quoted from their comments about the included studies to support your point. But none of the included studies was on TM. This was a misrepresentation -- one that you repeated on WP:AE. ] (]) 09:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


'''Withdrawn'''
::They did look at TM. And yes found that evidence was not sufficient to draw conclusions. This is stated above.] (] · ] · ]) 23:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
From the review.&nbsp;This Cochrane Review has been superseded. See 'Meditation for the prevention and management of heart disease'.&nbsp;The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.


::: <strike> Arguing with TG when he cannot reply is not so appropriate. </strike> I would have participated, but the last time I checked, the Cochrane review was not available online from my institution. I checked for it on Wiley Online using their filter "Journals" (i.e., removing entries that are not in journals) and I could not find it. It was in their database, but not indexed as a journal entry. Perhaps, this is why I cannot get it online from my institution. Also, I saw this edit in the talk page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&diff=378081498&oldid=378080524 ), but could not find where in the talk page you explain why you did that. It is very delicate to edit previous text in the talk page because it can interfere with subsequent comments. Make sure that you acknowledge explicitly this change where it can be relevant. ] (]) 15:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


•'''Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders (2006)'''
::::A number of people have commented on this thread. It is a discussion between all of us. ] (] · ] · ]) 16:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::: <small>Have fixed a typo in your posting above, "threat">"thread", just to avoid misunderstandings. Hope you don't mind. --] ] 17:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)</small>
::::: OK, fine. Still, I cannot get the article, which is not indexed as a journal. Perhaps, we should wait until after it gets indexed as a journal before including it. Also, can you address my last point. ] (]) 17:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


T Krisanaprakornkit&nbsp;1,&nbsp;W Krisanaprakornkit,&nbsp;N Piyavhatkul,&nbsp;M Laopaiboon•"
::::::You mean indexed like it is here ? ] (] · ] · ]) 17:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


&nbsp;
::::::And here, in the Wiley system: . &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 17:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Limited to two studies and only one on TM (Review of one primary study). Authors consider the review limited in scope/more research needed.


::::::: I had seen these two entries. I was referring to the main . When you search for meditation, you find the the 2010 Cochrane review, but after you filter for Journals, it disappears. I am guessing that explains why I cannot get it from my institution. ] (]) 20:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


• '''Meditation practices for health: state of the research. (2007)'''
== The 700 studies ==


Maria B Ospina,&nbsp;Kenneth Bond,&nbsp;Mohammad Karkhaneh,&nbsp;Lisa Tjosvold,&nbsp;Ben Vandermeer,&nbsp;Yuanyuan Liang,&nbsp;Liza Bialy,&nbsp;Nicola Hooton,&nbsp;Nina Buscemi,&nbsp;Donna M Dryden, and&nbsp;&nbsp;Terry P Klassen
*''Many of the 700 studies have been conducted by researchers associated with the TM organization.''<ref>{{cite journal |author=Canter PH, Ernst E |title=Insufficient evidence to conclude whether or not Transcendental Meditation decreases blood pressure: results of a systematic review of randomized clinical trials |journal=Journal of Hypertension |volume=22 |issue=11 |pages=2049–54 |year=2004 |month=November |pmid=15480084|url=http://meta.wkhealth.com/pt/pt-core/template-journal/lwwgateway/media/landingpage.htm?issn=0263-6352&volume=22&issue=11&spage=2049 |ref=harv| quote = All the randomized clinical trials of TM for the control of blood pressure published to date have important methodological weaknesses and are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization.}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Canter PH, Ernst E |title=The cumulative effects of Transcendental Meditation on cognitive function--a systematic review of randomised controlled trials |journal=Wien. Klin. Wochenschr. |volume=115 |issue=21-22 |pages=758–66 |year=2003 |month=November |pmid=14743579 |doi= |url= |quote = All 4 positive trials recruited subjects from among people favourably predisposed towards TM, and used passive control procedures... The association observed between positive outcome, subject selection procedure and control procedure suggests that the large positive effects reported in 4 trials result from an expectation effect. The claim that TM has a specific and cumulative effect on cognitive function is not supported by the evidence from randomised controlled trials.}}</ref>
{{reflist|close=1}}
What 700 studies are being referred to here? This is the only mention of them in the lead, so it's a non-sequitor. Do C&E mention "700 studies"? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 05:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


'''Archived'''
::Yes it states "Our searches have identified some 700 research papers on TM and most of these have been written by researchers directly associated with the TM organization. Many have not been subjected to peer review." and "All the randomized clinical trials of TM for the control of blood pressure published to date have important methodological weaknesses and are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization. There is at present insufficient good-quality evidence to conclude whether or not TM has a cumulative positive effect on blood pressure."] (] · ] · ]) 05:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Archived for historical reference only
:::Thanks. In that case the sentence should be written so that we communicate what these studies are. Also, "many" seems significantly different than "most". How about this: ''Most of the 700 studies on TM have been conducted by researchers associated with the TM organization, and many did not go through peer-review. All of the studies on blood pressure have been found to have methodological weaknesses and potential biases by some reviewers.'' &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 05:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


::::Yes I think that sums up the source.] (] · ] · ]) 05:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


::::: You did not ask all the relevant questions. "Where is it sourced?" and "Did it fairly represent the source?" are only two of the many aspects to consider. Here are some other aspects: "Was the statement prominent in the source?", "Was the source prominent for an article on TM?", "Are there other reliable sources that say the same thing?", "Is the statement contradicted in other reliable source?" The first of these other aspects is actually a refinement of "Did it fairly represent the source?" Also, I am not saying that we can exclude a statement because it is contradicted or ignored in other reliable sources on the same topic. This can only be used to give it a lower weight. Most importantly, there are other important issues that need to be discussed. This one (i.e., this new section) is also important. We can discuss it, but we will not succeed to address the NPOV violation of the lead without also considering the other issues. ] (]) 10:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The reason this is misleading is that the figure of 700 includes everything, such as dissertations, conference abstracts, pilot studies included in the early editions of Collected Papers. It's a matter of fact that many of this list of 700 weren't peer reviewed. But that doesn't in any way reflect on the hundreds of peer reviewed studies. Most of the studies published in the last 25 years have been peer reviewed. It really skews things to cherry pick this point and let it define the body of research. This shouldn't be in the lead. It doesn't matter how many pilot studies or conference presentations there were; what matters is the peer-reviewed research. And there's plenty of that. ] (]) 11:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
:I'm confused, TG. You're the one who made the edit that I'm questioning. If we all agree that many of the 700 studies were not peer-reviewed, and that most of them were conducted by TM-related researchers, then what is the problem with saying that? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 18:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


'''More recent review/clinical updates'''
:: @Will, first it is not our job to evaluate the truth of a statement in a source. However, it is our job to understand it so that we represent it fairly in the article. I think TG problem is summarized here ]. The problem is that this statement is unclear in terms of numbers of peer-reviewed studies (how many is many?). I think if we need to say something about the studies, we need a better reference, more precise. ] (]) 23:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


:I'm also wondering about the difference between "700 studies" and "over 600 studies". I assume that these are mostly the same studies. The movement makes frequent mention of the "over 600 studies", yet they rarely if ever make the distinctions that TG refers to. Since there are a variety of views on those studies, I don't see why we'd exclude an important, scholarly view about them. It would be incompatible with NPOV to leave the impression with readers that all of the over 600 studies are published in high-quality, peer-reviewed papers. If we're going to refer to these studies, then we need to give views besides those of the TMM. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 21:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


•'''Transcendental meditation for lowering blood pressure: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses''' (2017)
:: Yes, I see the same issue as Will here. I previously made the point that the "over 600 studies" does not have its place in the Intro because it does not convey the quality of the research. I am going even further : how many studies are peer-reviewed is also not so important. The existing meta-analyses have already done the job of analysing the quality of the research and they counted the number of studies that were eligible for consideration. However, why focusing on one or two sentences in seven years old reviews to address this issue? I guess I am reaching the same conclusion as TimidGuy. I believe that the ratio of high quality studies over all studies is about the same for research on meditation in general and possibly also in many other areas of research, if anything perhaps the ratio is higher in the TM case. This is cherry picking statements to imply that there is something wrong with the TM research in particular. I have no problem in citing the number of studies illegible for consideration in the various meta-analyses, but not only in Cochrane and AHRQ. We can mention that the TMO says that there are over 600 studies, if the con-TM wants it. This will imply that the majority of these studies were not illegible. However, I disagree with cherry picking one or two statements that draw unsupported negative conclusions specifically about the TM research from these numbers and then refer to them in the Intro. Moreover, if we do include such statements in the article, not in the Intro, they should be clearly attributed to C&E because they are highly controversial statements. ] (]) 23:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
:::"Cherry picking" implies that the sentences being summarized are not typical of the entire study. I don't think that's the case here. The sentences seem to be important conclusions, not just passing comments. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
:::: Let us consider this version of the statement in the Intro
<blockquote>
:::: According to Canter and Ernst, all of the studies on TM and blood pressure are potentially biased as they were conducted by researchers connected to the TM organization, and on subjects with favorable opinions of TM.
</blockquote>
:::: For the record, I say that your last argument (if used to include the above statement in the Intro) belongs in category one. I recall that category one contains arguments that are "Giving more weight to points out of the main scope of a source rather than to its main conclusions and findings." Before, I substantiate my position, I would like to ask you a question. What was the main scope of the C&E analysis in your opinion? Did they do a systematic analysis of the effect of a TM affiliation on the outcome of the studies? If they did I hope they controlled for a complete negative view of TM, the opposite of an affiliation, just in case the effect was the same but in the opposite direction. ] (]) 03:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


SooLiang&nbsp;Ooi, Melissa Giovino, Sok Cheon Pak
*''Objective: To carry out an independent, systematic review of randomized clinical trials of Transcendental Meditation (TM) for cumulative effects on blood pressure.''
*''Conclusion: All the randomized clinical trials of TM for the control of blood pressure published to date have important methodological weaknesses and are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization. There is at present insufficient good-quality evidence to conclude whether or not TM has a cumulative positive effect on blood pressure.
Perhaps I'm dense, but it wold appear to me that the scope of the review covers studies on the effects of TM on blood pressure, and the conclusion is that the studies are insufficient to make any conclusion about those effects. Does anyone think the review had a different scope? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 03:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
::Yes that is indeed the scope of the study. It conclusions agree with other independently done systematic reviews.] (] · ] · ]) 09:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
:::We really shouldn't be using C&E 2004 on blood pressure, since it's superseded by Ospina 2007, and since Ospina makes essential the same point. It's out of date. It doesn't include two of the highest quality studies: Schneider 2005 and Paul-Labrador 2006. In addition, the latter study was conducted by researchers who don't do TM. It can no longer be said that all studies to date are potentially biased by affiliation to the TM organization. ] (]) 10:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
::::If two highly reliable source say the same thing, that doubles the message rather than cancelling it out. ] says: "Although the most-recent reviews include later research results, do not automatically give more weight to the review that happens to have been published most recently, as this is recentism." In the text, we can describe the 2004 review, and then describe newer reviews and mention that additional research was conducted in between. That's too much detail for the intro, though. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 20:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


::::: They don't say the same thing. Please be more explicit. What part exactly of the 2004 C&E review is also found in recent meta-analyses? Is it "have important methodological weaknesses" or "are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization."? Except for the generalization to '''all''' studies, I agree that the first part is also mentioned in more recent meta-analyses. I didn't check for the second part, but it is irrelevant. The phrase "are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization" is not within the scope or objective of this 2004 review or of more recent reviews. They did not study that: the affiliation of the authors was not a variable in these reviews. I understand that it is mentioned in the 2004 C&E conclusion, but it remains a controversial opinion, not supported by their work, a passing comment and it should not receive too much weight even if we were to consider this review alone (which we should not do.) Whenever we present this opinion, normally not in the Intro, it should be separated from the true findings and, to respect WP:NPOV, presented together with the other opinion: "Probably all investigators bring bias to implementation of clinical trials—either enthusiasm or skepticism.", which can be found in the Anderson review and most likely elsewhere as well. The true findings can receive more weight than this opinion as long as they are not contradicted but supported by the most recent meta-analyses (thus with no '''all'''). Also, the wordings "lack of rigour" or "important methodological weaknesses" have a subjective component. It is unfortunate that these weasel expressions have been used to qualify studies that are rigorous, provide very useful information, but only cannot be used to draw definitive clinical conclusions according to some standard. These expressions should definitively be explicitly attributed to their sources. ] (]) 21:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::I'll let you and TG argue over whether these reviews have the same conclusions or not. If C&E's conclusion is just an opinion then I suppose all conclusions are opinions. I don't see the difference. I disagree that a core conclusion is the same thing as a passing comment. All conclusions found in reviews and papers should be attributed. However we don't need to name obscure scholars in the intro; that conveys no information to the readers. It's sufficient to name them generically or refer to their paper, and then give the details in the body. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 21:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


'''•First-line Psychotherapies for Military-Related PTSD (2020) /Clinical update (2020)'''
::::::: From what I recall, we did not insist to attribute to the authors. I think TimidGuy finally attributed the statement to the review, not to the authors. The statement we are talking about is " are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization". This is not a finding of the systematic review. The affiliation was not a variable in the review. It was not a rigorous well supported scientific statement. The statement " are potentially biased by authors or funding agencies that are detractors of the TM organization" is as true. The emphasis on one possible bias here is a question of opinion. The true finding is that the studies did not meet their quality assessment criteria. This is a systematic finding based on their systematic review. They express it by saying that the studies were of pour methodological quality. I feel there is a subjective component in the way it is expressed, but at the least it is linked to the actual finding. ] (]) 04:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Orme-Johnson specifically criticized this review yet he didn't mention anything about the potential bias conclusion, so it's probably OR for us to raise it here. Since MUM exists to promote TM and related technologies, it's not a stretch to assert that researchers there could be biased. Is there actual bias? Last year I asked if any study conducted by TM-affiliated researchers had ever failed to achieve a positive finding. The answer then was, basically, "no". Out of more than 500 studies, every single one found the expected result. That's a remarkable achievement but it also implies bias on the part of the researchers. Another form of bias is evident in the choice of topics. How is it that prolific researchers like Orme-Johnson, Dillbeck, and Travis have never conducted research on any topic unrelated to TM? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 08:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::I would take issue with you assertion Will that "MUM exists to promote TM and related technologies". Surely it exists to provide an education to the students that attend? Yes the education system there includes TM and related technologies, but it provide both undergrad and grad programs in a wide verity of subjects. --] (]) 08:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::Is it possible to graduate from MUM without learning TM? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 08:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::: Thread is drifting off into personal-opinion territory again. Can you two please re-focus? As I understand, the original topic of this thread was whether the summary cited at the beginning was a fair and accurate reflection of the research it meant to summarise. Is there still anything to debate about that? ] ] 09:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Thanks for the reminder. The text that I questioned at the beginning of the thread is now gone, so it's not about that topic anymore. Then it took a turn over whether some material in the conclusion of a review is just an opinion or not. I'd be happy to close this in favor of a more focused thread. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 09:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


Maria M.&nbsp;Steenkamp,&nbsp;PhD1;&nbsp;Brett T.&nbsp;Litz,&nbsp;PhD2,3;&nbsp;Charles R.&nbsp;Marmar,&nbsp;MD4
== NPOV violation of lead ==
== Could you point to the content ==


Could anyone point to the section of the review that specifically indicates this edit:
Selecting a few studies to support a view while ignoring others, and ignoring a summary of the content in the article itself to present a one sided view constitutes and creates a POV, and creates a lead that is patently absurd. The lead must summarize and reflect the article. if this paragraph is not pulled out and rewritten to comply with NPOV and ] standards we need to ask for formal mediation. Enough is enough. (] (]) 06:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC))


"There is no good evidence TM is of any use for reducing anxiety."
I''ndependently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education.<ref>{{cite book|author=Ospina MB, Bond TK, Karkhaneh M, Tjosvold L, Vandermeer B, Liang Y, Bialy L, Hooton N, Buscemi N, Dryden DM, Klassen TP.|url= http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf|title= Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research|publisher= ]|page=4|date=June 2007 |quote=A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Krisanaprakornkit T, Ngamjarus C, Witoonchart C, Piyavhatkul N |title=Meditation therapies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) |journal=Cochrane Database Syst Rev |volume=6 |issue= |pages=CD006507 |year=2010 |pmid=20556767 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD006507.pub2 |url= |quote =For this study there was no statistically significant difference between the meditation therapy group and the drug therapy group on the teacher rating ADHD scale (MD -2.72, 95% CI -8.49 to 3.05, 15 patients). Likewise, there was no statistically significant difference between the meditation therapy group and the standard therapy group on the teacher rating ADHD scale (MD -0.52, 95% CI -5.88 to 4.84, 17 patients). There was also no statistically significant difference between the meditation therapy group and the standard therapy group in the distraction test (MD -8.34, 95% CI -107.05 to 90.37, 17 patients).}}</ref><ref name=Cochrane06>{{cite journal|author=Krisanaprakornkit T, Krisanaprakornkit W, Piyavhatkul N, Laopaiboon M |title=Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders |journal=Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews |volume=|issue=1 |pages=CD004998 |year=2006 |pmid=16437509 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD004998.pub2 |ref=harv| quote=The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Ospina MB, Bond K, Karkhaneh M, ''et al.'' |title=Meditation practices for health: state of the research |journal=Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) |volume= |issue=155 |pages=1–263 |year=2007 |month=June |pmid=17764203 |page=4 |url= |ref=harv| quote = A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake}}</ref> It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation as the quality of research has design limitations and a lack of methodological rigor.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Ospina MB, Bond K, Karkhaneh M, ''et al.'' |title=Meditation practices for health: state of the research |journal=Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) |volume=|issue=155 |pages=1–263 |year=2007 |month=June |pmid=17764203 |doi= |url= |ref=harv |quote=Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence.}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Krisanaprakornkit T, Ngamjarus C, Witoonchart C, Piyavhatkul N |title=Meditation therapies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) |journal=Cochrane Database Syst Rev |volume=6 |issue= |pages=CD006507 |year=2010 |pmid=20556767 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD006507.pub2 |url= |quote =As a result of the limited number of included studies, the small sample sizes and the high risk of bias}}</ref><ref name=Cochrane06/> Part of this difficulty is due to the fact that many studies appear to have been conducted by devotees or researchers at universities tied to the Maharishi and on subjects with a favorable opinions of TM.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Canter PH, Ernst E |title=Insufficient evidence to conclude whether or not Transcendental Meditation decreases blood pressure: results of a systematic review of randomized clinical trials |journal=Journal of Hypertension |volume=22 |issue=11 |pages=2049–54 |year=2004 |month=November |pmid=15480084|url=http://meta.wkhealth.com/pt/pt-core/template-journal/lwwgateway/media/landingpage.htm?issn=0263-6352&volume=22&issue=11&spage=2049 |ref=harv| quote = All the randomized clinical trials of TM for the control of blood pressure published to date have important methodological weaknesses and are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization.}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Canter PH, Ernst E |title=The cumulative effects of Transcendental Meditation on cognitive function--a systematic review of randomised controlled trials |journal=Wien. Klin. Wochenschr. |volume=115 |issue=21-22 |pages=758–66 |year=2003 |month=November |pmid=14743579 |doi= |url= |quote = All 4 positive trials recruited subjects from among people favourably predisposed towards TM, and used passive control procedures... The association observed between positive outcome, subject selection procedure and control procedure suggests that the large positive effects reported in 4 trials result from an expectation effect. The claim that TM has a specific and cumulative effect on cognitive function is not supported by the evidence from randomised controlled trials.}}</ref>
''
::You mean while not mentioning reviews done by people affiliated with the TM organization? It specifically says independent. One could say non independent reviews done with funding from supporters of TM found favorable results. But we already say that in the body of the text and I do not think it warrants mentioning in the lead.] (] · ] · ]) 06:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


The review, author-conclusions states,"The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety,...
:::A single editor does not define the lead. The lead summarizes the article. Further, your insistence on using the self defined word "independent" to create a POV, while ignoring the peer review process and the reviews used in the article, discredits the researchers, the peer review, and the publication. That strikes me as a mighty tenuous position for any editor. Further your implied and continued insistence that the so called TM editors are not capable of neutral editing smacks of a violation of WP:AGF. Lets see if we can move along here and leave those concerns behind. The lead must be rewritten to fairly and neutrally summarize the article. End of story.(] (]) 06:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC))


I see two conclusions in reference to TM: One, that a small number of studies doesn't indicate conclusions for mediation therapy in general. And two, that TM compares to other kinds of relaxation therapies.
::::The lead still does not summarize what is in the article rather than make specific references to certain kinds of reviews and as opposed to summarizing the state of the research as a whole, but I made some changes to the wording to try and reflect the sources more closely.(] (]) 21:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC))


We could say," A 2006 review indicates no conclusions could be drawn on meditation as therapy, including TM, because of too few studies investigated.
:::::If you read the RfC you will notice a number of editors commented in support of the version I put forwards. I changed it back to the RfC version which already correctly summarized the research. I agree with Olive above enough is enough. Misplaced Pages is not a platform for promoting TM. ] (] · ] · ]) 09:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::: Would that "number of editors", that is uninvolved editors be the number 2, or am I miscounting? --] (]) 12:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::The point of an RfC is to get outside input. In an RfC, two responses is typical. In this case all (both) of the outside input gave the same response. Is anyone here suggesting we ignore the outside input? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 21:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::: We already answered that question. TimidGuy pointed out that these external editors were misinformed. We saw one of them gradually change its view point as he received more information. Besides, these inputs are there or should be there to help us apply the policy. So, let us work on it. ] (])
:::::::::::Ah, they were misinformed. Of course! And we know that how? Because TG said so? Should we ignore the outside input since you and TG believe it's wrong? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::There's a fair amount of opinion flying around here. We are looking for agreement among a majority of editors, and we don't have that, but are at an impasse. Right now we have two major issues; whether the lead in a short paragraph that for the most part references two reviews summarizes, health outcomes, mental function, criminal rehabilitaion and addiction, effects on the brain, and effects on the physiology, and second whether whatever is in the lead now accurately reflects the sources. If we delineate these two issues rather than conflate them and stick to the issues at hand we might be able to reach some agreement. No?(23:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC))
:::::::::::::If there's an impasse among involved editors then the preferred way of resolving that is to get outside input. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::: Yes, Misplaced Pages is not a platform for promoting TM. We should keep this in mind. It is also not a platform to compensate for a legitimate and normal promotion of TM outside Misplaced Pages. I do not think that the popular media and the research is biased by this TM promotion more than it is in any other direction, but even if it was, the job of all editors is to represent fairly and proportionally what is in the published research outside Misplaced Pages (especially, the meta-analyses). If you want, you can try having peer-reviewed journals stop publishing meta-analyses that show the positive effects of TM, but in Misplaced Pages you must respect these highly reliable sources. ] (]) 14:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::War? That's hyperbole. Let's try to keep the discussion here on a more reasonable basis and avoid inflammatory language. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 21:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::: Made some modifications. Took out war. ] (]) 22:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::In the future, please review your edits before pressing the "save page" button. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


The date is pertinent as is the reason the review cannot draw conclusions.
Thanks Will. I'm sure all editors make comments <strike>which<strike> that they might later like to retract or which contain errors. (] (]) 23:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC))
:Yes, I often correct my spelling and grammar mistakes. However those are not the kinds of changes that ESL is needing to make. Making inflammatory or personal remarks and then removing them after being called on them is not a very collegial method. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


I'd note per MEDRS,] that this source, at 2006, is outdated. There are more recent, pertinent, MEDRS compliant sources than a source that is 18 years old, with two studies and only one that pertains to the topic of this article, and that states, no conclusions could be drawn.
:: I think it was necessary that I remove any wordings that could detract the attention from the main point because I really feel it is an important point. In fact, I think it is about the current "war", oops no, I mean, difficulty that con-TMs have with the research on TM. They ignore that though TM is a well identified organisation, there is as much opposition to TM (for different kind of reasons, religious, financial, etc.) than there is support for TM in the world. It is not because this opposition is not under a well identified unique umbrella that it does not exist. So, using the affiliation to detect the bias is not fair. It is one sided. The only fair solution that we have against this kind of bias is peer-review, a well designed methodology, etc. With regard to your last concern, Will, I felt that since I acknowledged that I made some modifications, you had no reason to be embarrassed. ] (]) 00:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
:::Who are these "con-TMs" to whom you're referring? Do they have names? Are there "pro-TMs"? Who are they? On what basis are you drawing these distinctions? Do you belong to one of these categories, or are you one of the "neutral editors"? Since you're so eager to share your opinions about editors and their motivations I'd like to hear more about yours. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 00:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
:::: If the Misplaced Pages editors and authors outside Misplaced Pages did not mention or use the pro-TM or con-TM argument, it will be great. Unfortunately, I often see the pro-TM argument used here in this talk page, things like "only pro-TMs editors think like that ..." or "the authors are pro-TM and therefore we should not rely on the paper"). I can easily provide diffs for statements of this kind. Authors also use it. For example, Ospina et al wrote "the studies on TM and blood pressure are potentially biased as they were conducted by researchers connected to the TM organization". You suggest a very good point that even strengthen my argument. You suggest that con-TMs but also even pro-TMs are not easy to identify. You are right that I cannot easily identify them. I agree. Affiliation is perhaps not a very efficient criteria. So, it is not fair to use the affiliation to evaluate a possible inclination of the authors. It only focuses on a couple of authors and only among those with a possible inclination to support TM and ignores a possible inclination of reviewers, editors, authors for the AHRQ report, Cochrane reviews, etc. It's one sided because only some editors in one side can be formally identified. In our evaluation of reliable sources, we should put aside this kind of arguments and focus on the quality of the review process and on other criteria that are not one-sided and cannot violate NPOV. ] (]) 01:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
::::: I can't find any posts that say "only pro-TMs editors think like that ..." or "the authors are pro-TM and therefore we should not rely on the paper". Please provide the diffs to support your claims, or stop making them. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 02:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


There is no evidence, per this review, that the small number of studies reviewed can lead to evidence that meditation therapy is effective in anxiety reduction. The review does not say is of no use. That is an extrapolation, and not accurate per the review we are looking at.
:::::: I said I can find diffs for statements '''like''' those. I did not felt necessary to provide them before, since I thought you had no doubt that I can do that. Since you now ask, I will provide them. You just made your request before this recent arbitration request of Doc James. I will provide them soon. ] (]) 04:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


] (]) 16:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Yes diffs are ALWAYS needed much as references are always needed. Only concrete statements and context can be discussed.] (] · ] · ]) 22:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


:If the source says evidence does "not permit any conclusions to be drawn" that equates to "no good evidence" (in part because the default assumption is 'no effect'). Per ] it's best not to include the gubbins about what the document type is. Cochrane reviews are exempt from ] because the assumption is they update when the underlying evidence changes; this is set out in ]. ] (]) 16:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
{{Anchor|Evaluation of sources - reply}}
:::::::: Well, I just read the above thread again and it was not important in this thread to refer to how editors consider pro-TM versus con-TM. What is important in this thread is how a TM affiliation is used to weight the reliability of sources. Using an affiliation is a one-sided argument because we cannot use it with authors, referees or editors that have an inclination against TM (say because of a personal belief, an influence of large corporations or simply an irrational fear or scepticism). It is one-sided because only one side (or a part of it) is under a well identified umbrella. Fortunately, the policy put the emphasis on the review process and on how other sources cite a given source. This is the main criteria and we should stick to it. I am not saying the affiliation is irrelevant, but it is already taken into account in the review process in a much more neutral and balanced way that we can do it here. Considering it again here in this talk page to weight the reliability of a meta-analysis can only add a bias by putting an extra and much too strong emphasis on it. ] (]) 19:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


::I agree and have updated the article to reflect this. ] (]) 17:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
{{od}} In any case, even though it is not useful in this thread, because Doc James insisted, here are some paste and cut from this talk page. You can easily find the context using a search.
:Add: per your comment on Cochrane: There is much research now on meditation techniques that indicate reduction of anxiety. This review is poor in terms of the reviews and also in date. Maybe take look at the state of the research in meditation techniques. A lot has changed in almost 20 years. The same is true of anything we might call Fringe. What was fringe 20 years ago may now be mainstream. That's the nature of science and research. Salk research on the polio vaccines would by our standards have been considered Fringe at one time, but now with research is no longer so. ] (]) 17:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
* Yes the three of you agree but you also all practice TM. Now please get some outside input.
::Really? This is a page specifically about ]. From a quick look the research scene is moribund (mindfulness is the new kid on the block). Which are the ] on TM and anxiety? ] (]) 17:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
* No one who is not a member of TM seems to however be agreeing with your position.
* You will need to convince Misplaced Pages editors who are not practitioners of TM the validity of your argument.
It is beside the main point in this thread, but I think they are examples that illustrate a fundamental mistrust and unwillingness to honestly discuss here, which seriously impair our ability to progress. ] (]) 19:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
:None of this thread seems to concern edits to this article. I suggest that we either delete it or archive it. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 03:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
::Why this think now Will? You participated in this thread several time in the last few days. Why the feeling to delete or archive now? --] (]) 08:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
:::"The sole purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to this article."
:::We seem to have about eight threads going on the lead, and most of them have drifted from that topic. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 16:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
{{od}}I propose that a statement that represents fairly the 2008 Anderson meta-analysis on the effect of TM on blood pressure is added in the Intro. The only argument against its inclusion have been shown against policy in this thread and no one counter replied. ] (]) 10:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
:I don't see anything about Anderson in this thread. Maybe we have too many threads going. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 17:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
:: See . The arguments used to give a low weight to the Anderson meta-analysis are of the kind considered in this thread. I would like that we discuss this issue in good faith. ] (]) 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
:::For future reference, a "thread" usually refers to a talk page section. This thread/section is "NPOV violation of lead".
:::I don't see where in the linked thread that a policy violation was proven, or where there was a failure to reply. Is there any doubt that we are discussing this in good faith? If so, that discussion should take place elsewhere. This talk page is just for the discussion of improvements to the article. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
:::: Since you ask, yes I have doubts, but I sincerely tried not to express them. Now that you ask the question, I have no choice as to explain why I have these doubts. It's because, just above, I and BwB have attempted a few times to bring your attention on the arguments used to consider edits in the Intro, but without any success. In particular, I don't understand your issue about the scope of a thread, as if we cannot refer to another thread from within a thread. The weight that we give to a source, even if it is considered in another thread, is highly relevant to a wanted NPOV in the Intro. Now, please, they are only doubts based on unsuccesful repeated attempts to bring your attention to the actual arguments. I don't provide diffs because they are just above in the current thread. The best we can do at this time is to forget about these doubts and focus on the arguments. If you need a specific paragraph to consider, use this one ]. BTW, this is actually a reply to a question you asked ], which I did not understood at the time. ] (]) 14:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::This seems like a distraction. Let's maintain our focus here on the article and leave meta-discussions for other pages. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 17:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
{{od}}
I maintain my proposal that a statement that represents fairly the 2008 Anderson meta-analysis on the effect of TM on blood pressure is added in the Intro. This is clearly a natural proposal in the context of this section "NPOV violation of lead". Here is a draft
<blockquote>
A 2008 random-effects meta-analysis of nine trials suggests that
Transcendental Meditation is associated with a significant
reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressure that is
likely to significantly reduce risk for
cardiovascular disease in the long term.
</blockquote>
Is there any argument '''based on the policy''' against the inclusion of such a statement? ] (]) 21:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
:Yes, I object. Devoting that much space to a single review would unbalance the intro. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 21:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
:: I disagree. The effect of TM on blood pressure is one of the most prominent POV (i.e., studied effect) on the context of TM. Even the reviews currently used in the Intro say so. The POV that TM significantly reduces blood pressure is supported by at the least another systematic review, if not more. It has been reported in scientific TV programs and general audience news clips. If you do a search on meditation (or on transcendental meditation) on Google Scholar, the Anderson meta-analysis appears early in the results together with many other studies and reviews that contradict the current POV in the Intro. On the other hand, even after 100 entries we do not see the reviews that are currently used in the Intro, except the 2003 Canter review. I did not look further, but I am guessing that the others are not there at all. So, clearly there is something wrong here, a clear NPOV violation in the Intro. ] (]) 22:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


:::I suggest you look deeper. And if you're in a looking mood you might want to check the Mindfulness article, a conglomerate of mindfulness related content rather than anything clearly delineated. The Effects of Meditation article is wracked with non- MEDRS sources and is clearly a mindfulness-dominated, POV article. I don't edit Misplaced Pages much anymore. Too Busy. And I don't try try to add new content or update this article in terms of research. There is a point where the fight isn't worth it. There is research being done on many meditation techniques from what I've seen. New kid might be a red flag, though; how much is MEDRS compliant? I am busy again for quite a while but I'll see about adding content on the state of the research on this article topic. It's not a competition. Meditation has become mainstream and there has to be room to accurately describe any forms that have verifiable, reliable sources. ] (]) 17:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
::How would including this review unbalance the intro? (] (]) 22:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC))
::::Also: Health effects section is organized to indicate the history of the research given this meditation has a relatively long history in research and the article follows that history. So the date of the Cochran review should be added back in. Right now there’s a bit of a gaping hole where research date was removed. ] (]) 19:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


:::The policy in question would be ].] (] · ] · ]) 22:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


===Reversion of date with out summary comment===
== TMM as religious organization ==
Bon Courage. You've reverted with out any reason given. As I said here, the section is organized by date. You've removed the date. We do have another option. The review we are discussing has only one study on TM. Th authors conclude that with only that one study and whatever issues that study had no conclusions could be drawn. So per our own MEDRS guidelines this isn't a legitimate review since we are looking for replicated results. The whole thing should probably be removed. Further and again the review itself is outdated.


I have to wonder why you're insistent in removing the date and ignoring context. I refuse to get into some weird edit warring situation so if you honestly and with out bias feel it is appropriate to exclude the date when information has been ordered historically and since you also seem to have no reason to make that deletion I will leave the edit. I can't argue with what is illogical. If you do have a bias do you really think our readers are stupid enough to wonder about the bald statement now in the article which makes no logical sense. ] (]) 21:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
In the lead we have the statement "In the 1950s, the Transcendental Meditation movement (TMM) had presented itself as a religious organization." I am not sure that this is the case. Perhaps others perceived TMM as a religious org. but did the TMM itself present itself as a religious organization? What are the sources to support this statement? Also, do we feel that this sentence is a summary of some section of the article below? --] (]) 08:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
: Maharishi might have mentioned devatas, which the TM organization describes as laws of nature, without presenting a connection with modern science. Nowaday, the TM organization speaks of devatas perhaps even more than in the 1950s, but only as different aspects of the laws of nature as seen in the human physiology and in the universe. I understand that some might feel that the TM organisation is just packaging modern Hinduism to sell it in the form of modern science, but it is not what I see. I see that the TM organisation is packaging modern science to extract from it the consciousness aspect, that is, to make the connection with the different states of consciousness and their physiological correlates. It just uses old terms and names that are interpreted differently in modern Hinduism. Why? Because Maharishi wants that we use the sound quality of these terms and names. Maharishi says that the sound quality is very important and has an effect on the physiology. Note that the different states of consciousness and their physiological correlates can be studied within modern science. Just wanted to make sure that no editor misinterpret sources. If the source is Maharishi, then you cannot make him say that TM is a religion unless he said it explicitly. You cannot make him say anything about '''Hinduism''' unless he explicitly used the term '''Hinduism'''. I presented my interpretation above, which I believe is close to the TM organisation interpretation. Others might have a different interpretation. The key point is that we must avoid reinterpreting a source in accordance with our POV. We must stick to what the source says.


: BTW, we should never have a section with the title "TMM as religious organization", because such a title is by itself presenting a POV. It is better to have a neutral title. Otherwise, we would need another section with the title "TMM as a non religious organisation", so that all POVs are represented. ] (]) 11:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC) :See above where I put "Cochrane reviews are exempt from WP:MEDDATE because the assumption is they update when the underlying evidence changes". So the assumption is what Cochrane says is current. I'd suggest you actually engage with points made. The rest of that section needs to be made compliant with ] too. If you think that Cochrane rewiews are "not legitimate" that is not something Misplaced Pages can fix. ] (]) 21:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
::And do we have a source that says that the "Transcendental Meditation movement (TMM) had presented itself as a religious organization" in the 1950s? --] (]) 12:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


::Ah well. You've sidestepped the points I made-red herring. You reverted the date of the review with out reason- no real edit summary given. And noting the information is not describing the source; this is supposedly a reliable source and this is just content. You've twisted WP:MEDSAY. Why are you afraid of adding a date? You've decided the research is moribund. I'm sure it is in this article because editors trot along and remove whatever doesn't suit their positions as you have done. You've worded the review inaccurately. I have no problem with adding whatever the review says but I do have problems with what appears to be illogical at best and biased at worst reading of the review. I'm no stranger to this kind of argument, and I know the only way too deal with it is to walk away. Should I add more research of which there is quite a bit, as the research on all forms of meditation increases yearly when this is what one deals with? You win! I don't deal with bullying or arguments that sidestep the issues. There's no point. ] (]) 22:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, the TM org did present itself a religious early on in its history, not as a religion, but religious. Keep in mind that religious and spiritual are often used interchangeably although, they are clearly delineated by some. Check the first source in the article on this topic ... You might also like to check the second source)(] (]) 18:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC))
:::Olive, it is really impossible to respond meaningfully to that. ] (]) 06:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


Note: Cochrane is not the only reliable;e source. ] (]) 00:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
:::: See ]. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 18:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


:What, for TM & anxiety specifically? It's not obvious that's the case. ] (]) 06:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
::::: Most likely things are going over there as they are here. So, it is not a useful reference at all. Please, let us focus on what reliable sources say without using our own POV to interpret them. I am sorry if I confused other editors by bringing my own interpretation above. I just wanted to point out that we all have our interpretations, but we have to put it aside and focus on the actual content of reliable sources and make sure that we do not give undue weight to any particular POV. ] (]) 21:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
::I'm not sire what point you're making?
::You're probably right. I really don't want to be here haggling over this article again. So my responses may not be complete. As perspective. I am a strict, maybe rigid, supporter of MEDRS. So, the subtle implication that I am supporting bias is frustrating. This article is not moribund, it's stable after years of contention. Let's see if I can make my position clear, as apparently I haven't. My perceptions.


The source in question is poor per MEDRS. It includes 2 studies, only one is about TM. MEDRS is meant to protect the reader from "Fringe" information- information that may with time become mainstream, but not now. As long as we have physicians who use Misplaced Pages for diagnosis( I'd head for the door if my physician did this), we have a responsibility to include only replicated studies/information. This review, such as it is, is not showing replicated information.
::::: So, do we have a reliable source that says that the "Transcendental Meditation movement (TMM) had presented itself as a religious organization" in the 1950s? ] (]) 21:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


The source very clearly says,"The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety,..." the source does not make an overarching statement about anxiety and TM. This article is, however, making an over arching statement; we are misrepresenting the source in part by deliberately excluding context: The small number of studies does not allow any conclusions to be drawn. TM is comparable....
::::::See Wallis 1984 p. 34. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 21:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::See ] where information formerly in this article about the original posture of the TM Movement as religious was moved. The Maharishi and his followers originally called the TM Movement the "Spiritual Regeneration Movement" (it took a few years before the movement settled on "Transcendenal Meditation" as a trade name). Until SIMS was formed in the mid-1960s the only organization authorized to teach TM in the US was the Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation. Its articles of incorporation stated that its purpose was "religious". Multiple reliable, secondary sources have noted this, including the Federal courts in the ''Malnak v Yogi'' case and Olive was kind enough to check the corporate records to confirm that this is correct (saving having to order and pay for a copy from the California Secretary of State) This has been previously discussed at length in the talk archives, among other places, here: ] ] (]) 22:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::: OK ! I was just asking for the source. I think this source, the Federal courts, which reports on the mission of the SRM in its incorporation, appears reliable. I was just concern that we go beyond that. It is one thing to say that the TMO presented itself as religious (not a religion) and another thing to interpret Maharishi as teaching about Hinduism, etc. Some authors might have written that, but it is highly controversial, should be clearly attributed to these authors and should not be given undue weight. ] (]) 17:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::Abortion is highly controversial. Nothing here is highly controversial. Outside of the TM movement, I don't think many people get upset to see TM or MMY associated with Indian religions. Even in India the TM movement is perceived as religious. As far as this article goes, every time it's mentioned it's attributed to the authors. If anything, the issue may not be receiving sufficient weight, based on the number of scholarly sources that discuss the topic. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 21:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::: No it is controversial. Yes, the controversy is mainly between TM and a few detractors and not in the general population, but this is why it should not be given undue weight. The religious or spiritual part is not so controversial, but that we packaged Hinduism or Hinduism gods is controversial. The TM technique is not less or more found in Hinduism than it is found in Christianity. ] (]) 21:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::"hat we packaged Hinduism or Hinduism gods". I don't understand what that means. I'm not aware of any observer suggesting that the overall teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and his numerous Vedic "technologies", are just as close to Christianity as they are to traditional Indian religions. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 22:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
{{od}}Aside from the fascinating use of the term "we", which I will not comment on, the suggestion that whether or not TM is religious or founded in Hinduism isn't something on the radar of "the general population" and that to raise the issue is a violation of ] or ] misapplies both policies. I don't know what "the general population" thinks about TM; I suspect that they don't think about it much at all, given the collapse of new enrollment some 35 years ago from which the movement has never recovered, although there was and is extensive newspaper coverage of the court cases in New Jersey, and Lynch's initiative to put TM into public schools, which were met with considerable opposition in several communities over precisely that controversy. The point is what do reliable sources say about it, and what is the weight given to the question in reliable sources? As Will points out, there is considerable mention of the controversy in secondary sources, and considerable scholarly work on this issue.


The section has been organized by date. ] does not forbid basic information about the source being used. Using ] as some kind of edit summary seems disingenuous to me. There is implied consensus in a years long stable article that you ignored in favor of your own edit leaving a bald, dateless inaccurate statement.
The claim that technique is no more or less founded in Hinduism than in Christianity is unique, to say the least. The Maharishi said:
<blockquote>For training the mind through sound we can take any word. Even the word "mike" can be taken. By reducing the sound of the word "mike" to its subtler and still subtler stages and allowing the mind to go on experiencing all the stages one by one, the mind can be trained to be so sharp as to enter into the subtlest stage of the sound 'mike', transcend ing which it will automatically get into the realm of Sat-Chidanandam and experience it. Thus we find that any sound can serve our purpose of training the mind to become sharp. But we do not select the sound at random, We do not select any sound like 'mike', flower table, pen, wail, etc, because such ordinary sounds can do nothing more than merely sharpening the mind; whereas there are some special sounds which have the additional efficacy of producing vibrations whose effects are found to be congenial to our way of life. This is the scientific reason why we do not select any word at random. For our practice, we select only the suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the grace of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of life.''</blockquote>


The MEDRS position would be to remove the source. There is no replication, and there was not enough information to draw any conclusions.
The puja ceremony, translated by the Maharishi, says:


Finally, as an experienced editor you know that the only way I can deal further with this issue is to edit war and to enter the morass that follows that kind of contention. I attempted to compromise by agreeing with an edit you made, whether I bought the argument or not, but you went further with out agreement. I either walk away or am forced into an edit war. Is there frustration at being forced into such a position. Yes. But I don't care enough to engage in that kind of mess.
<blockquote>To the Lord Narayana, to lotus-born Brahma the Creator, to Vashishtha, to Shakti and his son Parashar, To Vyasa, to Shukadeva, to the great Gaudapada, to Govinda, ruler among the yogis, to his disciple, Shri Shankaracharya, to his disciples Padma Pada and Hasta Malaka And Trotakacharya and Vartika-Kara, to others, to the tradition of our Master, I bow down.


The article as it stands now is weaker than it was, if MEDRS is a legitimate standard. I think it is. ] (]) 17:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
To the abode of the wisdom of the Shrutis, Smritis and Puranas, to the abode of kindness, to the personified glory of the Lord, to Shankara, emancipator of the world, I bow down.


:{{tq|Finally, as an experienced editor you know that the only way I can deal further with this issue is to edit war}} &larr; not at all, you could raise a query at ]. But if you are going to argue that a Cochrane review is poor or fringe you'd better have a strong case! It is hallmark of good systematic reviews that they exclude poor sources; poor reviews tend to include all sorts of crap. But surely the main point is that this is the ONLY review of TM/Anxiety in existence. Unless you know of others? ] (]) 18:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
To Shankaracharya the redeemer, hailed as Krishna and Badarayana, to the commentator of the Brahma Sutras, I bow down.


::You've sidestepped once again: Why did you remove a date? And, the content you support does not faithfully reflect the source.
To the glory of the Lord I bow down again and again, at whose door the whole galaxy of gods pray for perfection day and night.
:: No one suggested Cochrane in and of itself is not reliable. No source is valuable to us unless it specifically supports specific content and complies with our standards.
* * * *
:: No one suggested the review is fringe.
Guru in the glory of Brahma, Guru in the glory of Vishnu, Guru in the glory of the great Lord Shiva, Guru in the glory of the personified transcendental fulness of Brahman, to Him, to Shri Guru Dev adorned with glory, I bow down.''</blockquote>
:: I don't have to go to a notice board to know the content you are supporting does not reflect the source. Further NB are often a time sink, and the positions raised there are not binding on any article. Often they are a waste of time, of which I have little, in part because they are not binding
:: For starters, please look at the rest of the reviews in the section for TM and anxiety.
::I've done what I can do here. Best wishes. ] (]) 16:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
:::A date is only needed if the information is time-bound in some way. Has the view on TM/Anxiety changed? Per ] we should just deliver the knowledge payload without needless detail. The conclusion of the review says "The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders" which we summarize well (i.e. no good evidence to support). As to other sources: good tip. That Goyal source is comparatively recent (2014), but was badly mis-summarized. ] (]) 16:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


== Maharishi effect ==
The Maharishi directed that, after practicing the TM-Sidhi , all initiates must read the Ninth Mandala of the Rig Veda to feed the Soma they had created in their guts to the Vedic gods, particularly Indra. The court in Hendel, holding that the practice of TM-Sidhi was a religion, found that TM-Sidhi practitioners were taught that the TM-Sidhi program "produced soma in our bodies for the gods to drink"; and that the reading of the Ninth and Tenth Mandalas of Rig Veda as part of the practice "invoked the names of Hindu gods"


"The square root of 1%" is 10%. I'm not sure what 0.00016% is in relation to 1%, but it's not the square root. ] (]) 18:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Those are some of the things that the courts have cited in holding that TM is a religion. Many scholarly sources, including those very sypathetic to TM have looked to the Maharishi's own statments on the roots of TM and his commentaries on the Vedic texts. Others have looked at alleged Tantric roots to some of the practices of TM. There is a wealth of scholarly material on this. If anyone can come up with a reliable source credibly arguing that the foregoing is from any religious tradition other than Hinduism, they are welcome to add it to the article with appropriate weight and attribution.
:What they mean is: the square root of (one per cent (1%) of the population), not (the square root of one per cent (1%)) of the population. --] (]) 06:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
:I've rewritten that part of the article, omitting the 0.00016%. It appears that the global population was ~4 billion in 1974, 1% of that is 40 million, and √(40 million) is 6324.5553 (0.000158% of 4 billion) <span style="white-space: nowrap;">] (]・])</span> 16:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


== Yogic Flying ==
Some sources assert that TM is a religion, some assert that it is not. Some sources assert that it is founded in one or another branches of Hinduism, and other sources assert that it is founded in traditions that predate Hinduism. To the extent that the articles presents these points of view, they are reliably sourced and attributed to those sources. Some sources assert that there is no inconsistency or conflict between practicing TM and practicing any religion; others disagree. To the extent that the articles present any of these points of view, they are reliably sourced and attributed. They are not things that the editors here simply made up or are asserting as their POV. ] (]) 23:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1988, published "International Peace Project in the Middle East: The Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field." This study indicates a small group A of Transcendental Meditation peace experts practicing Yogic Flying (the √1% of the regional population), and thereby creating more EEG coherent brains, was time-lag correlated to B, reduced warfare in Lebanon. Cross-lagged panel correlation compares the synchronous correlation (the correlation between two variables at the same time) with the lagged correlations (the correlation of a variable with another variable at earlier and later times). The hypothesis that A is causing B is supported if variations in A are followed in time by correlated changes in B, whereas changes in B are not followed in time by correlated changes in A. "Cross-correlations and transfer functions indicated that the group had a leading relationship to change on the quality-of-life indicators, supporting a causal interpretation." </nowiki> ] (]) 07:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
: Wow ! I am writing long replies, but you surpassed me here ! Ok, you have the right to express your opinion and mention the opinions of others as it pleases you. Honestly, I did not read your long reply. However, I did not oppose that we present the diverse opinions of some authors on the subject. I just wanted to make clear that we cannot attribute to Maharishi or to the TMO and not also to Misplaced Pages the opinion that the TMO is just repackaging Hinduism. The TMO position is that TM is as much behind Christianity as it is behind Hinduism. The TMO uses names and sound that have an interpretation in Hinduism, some as Hinduism gods. This interpretation is the essence of Hinduism as a religion and we don't have this interpretation. In that sense, this connection is superficial. Again, I am sure there are authors with different opinions. ] (]) 05:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
::"The TMO position is that TM is as much behind Christianity as it is behind Hinduism." Source?
::Again, unless this discussion concerns a proposed edit it just seems like chatter. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 06:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
::: Yes, this is the basic idea. No, not every thing that we say in the talk page must be directly a statement to be included in the article. It can be something that gives an idea of what could be included and sourced, if we wanted. I thought it was understood that we were discussing the basic idea. ] (]) 06:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
::::If we're just exchanging opinions we should find another venue, like a forum. The sole purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to this article.
::::That said, I've watched a few TMO videos that depict ] floating by on a chariot, but none that show Jesus Christ. I'll find a link for it, if you like, and you can try to find a link of one showing Christ. Is that a good way of settling this? Or perhaps we can compare the number of references to traditional Indian religions with the number of citations from the Christian or Jewish scriptures? Maybe you can find some recordings of pandits doing Gregorian chants?
::::Or, better yet, let's just stick with what we find in reliable sources and leave our own analyses for other websites. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 06:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::I love this quote from Will: "The sole purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to this article." Can we please make this the mantra for this talk page and apply it equally to all editors who comment in this page? I am happy to have Will remind us ALL of this point again and again and again. Thanks, Will. --] (]) 09:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::: I've probably written almost that exact sentence two dozen times, and sentiments like it another four dozen times, on various Misplaced Pages talk pages. Yes, repeat it early and often. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 10:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
{{od}}Yes, it would be easy to interpret the previous discussion as a personal TM propaganda followed by a personal anti-TM propaganda, but let us not go into this. The fact is that we must discuss the TM position in the talk page so that we have an idea of what could be eventually included and sourced in the article. We must also discuss the other viewpoints for the same reason. Let us just do it without taking side personally (emotively, etc.) as much as possible.


:Amazing bollocks eh! But why raise it? ] (]) 07:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
With regard to the pictures of Ganesh, etc., yes, the graphical representations of these devatas in the TMO is also used in Hinduism. This is the same thing as for the name and sound, the connection is only at the sound and graphical level. This can be made clear if we present the book of Raja Ram (Dr Tony Nader, physiologist) where he presents the devatas in the human physiology. It is not that the devata are Hinduism entities independent of the physiology or independent of the laws of nature behind this physiology and that Raja Ram has shown that these Hinduism entities are also in the physiology. It is not that. The TMO only sees the devatas as aspects of the laws of nature in the physiology. The graphical representation used in pictures and videos is suggestive of the actual shape of these devata in the human physiology. This is not at all the Hinduism interpretation of the devata. It is pointless to keep bringing out a connection at the sound or graphical level between TM and Hinduism, when the essence of the Hinduism is in the interpretation of these sounds and images and the TMO has a completely different interpretation. It is worth to mention the graphical connection once, but there is nothing much in this, certainly not a revelation that the TMO is a scam, a religion or a packaging of the Hinduism religion. ] (]) 14:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
:Dear Editor,
:Thanks. That's one of the most fascinating rationalizations I've ever heard. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 22:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
:Here is further evidence why you post my edit from the Journal of Conflict Resolution.
::I find people arguements have much more weight if they are able to provide references to support them as references are going to be what is needed if content is eventually added to the article page.] (] · ] · ]) 22:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
:“A causal law of nature means no more and no less than that A is always followed by B (Kemeny, 1959),” said Dr. John G. Kemeny, former colleague of Einstein, and former President of Dartmouth College. This causal law satisfies the requirement made by non-TM peer review editors that TM causes the creation of a EEG coherent brain, increased IQ and intelligence scores, increased moral and ethical reasoning scores, more loving behavior, reduced school suspensions and expulsions, fewer hospitalizations in all disease categories, a longer average life span of about 15 years, relief from suicidal PTSD by veterans, and when only 1% of society practices TM, significantly decreased accident rates, decreased crime rates, and improved economic indicators like increased gross domestic product, and rising international stock markets.
:::In case anyone's curious, I was referring to animations that illustrate songs. One, which I guess is called "Heaven is Descending", appears at the end of many TM videos. For example, at 1:11 of this video: (You can save it or stream it). But I've also seen even more floating deities (or devatas) in other videos. ESL tells us that they suggest the actual shape of things in the human physiology. I'm not an anatomist so I can't comment on that interpretation. To my untrained eye, they look like Krishna, Ganesh, et al. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 08:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
:Non-TM peer review editors confirm: The chance of error in the TM crime reduction studies, is only p < .0000000000000000001. In normal studies p < .01 means there is an excellent chance — 99 per cent — that the difference in outcomes would NOT be observed if the intervention had no benefit whatsoever. So p < .000000000000000001 means it is virtually certain, statistically, that the TM intervention caused the war deaths to fall 76%.
::::Reminding Will: "The sole purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to this article." --] (]) 12:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
:Non-TM peer review editors confirm: In TM crime reduction studies, other possible causes (weekends, holidays, weather, police procedures, government initiatives, etc.) are statistically controlled for.
:::::The extensive use of sacred Indian texts and imagery by MMY and his organizations deserves further coverage, but most of that doesn't pertain directly to TM. Perhaps we should gather sources for a "Teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" to cover his theories of the Vedas and Natural Law. That material doesn't seem to fit very well in any of the other articles. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 18:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
:Non-TM peer review editors confirm: TM peace intervention studies are announced (predicted) ahead of time (before the TM intervention).
:::::: Well, your wording ''sacred'' is not so often used by MMY, but maybe he did in some context. After all you did use it here and you see yourself as scientific and rational. MMY interacts with people of all religions. For example, he might have said to Christians that TM is a strong prayer. I don't know that, but maybe he did. It is the emphasis that we put on these things that concerns me, as if they were important revelations of some hidden scam. Anyway, if I put aside what could be an intention to refer to MMY works, not impartially for what it is, but in terms of a sceptic point of view, I certainly agree that we should present more of MMY works and also of Raja Ram works. However, it is very important that we present it fairly, not only a few sentences there and there only to bring a sceptic point of view. I am not sure that we have yet the required environment to do that successfully. ] (]) 20:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
:To sum up, non-TM peer review editors confirm: Using the compound probability model , cross-lagged panel correlation (CLPC), Box-Jenkins ARIMA impact assessment, transfer function analyses, the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Liu’s linear transfer function (LTF), Ljung-Box Q statistic (showing joint probabilities of autocorrelations in residuals were insignificant, indicating statistical adequacies), robustness checks with “pseudovariables” (to rule out spurious effects), etc., 19 published studies indicate causality and rule out reverse causation for the TM crime reduction effect.https://istpp.org/news/2017_03-field-effects-of-consciousness-peer-reviewed-studies.html ] (]) 09:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I'm just quoting the Misplaced Pages article on ], called "Rk Veda" by MMY and described by hims as the "Constitution of the Universe". MMY's philosophy was that, "If our perception, if our comprehension, if our intelligence is refined enough, we find that the first complete expression of the total knowledge found in Veda and the Vedic Literature is found in the first letter of the first syllable of Rk Veda, which is the source of all the other Vedic Literature. The same completeness of knowledge is then found in the entire first syllable, then in the first word, then the first verse of the Rk Veda." The first word of RK Veda appears to be "]". I don't know what it all means, but I don't have to understand it to report it. . &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 01:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
::That crackpot institution is not a ]. --] (]) 09:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:::This Journal Of Conflict Resolution study on Yogic Flying time-lagged correlated to reduction of warfare includes authors Charles N. Alexander affiliated with Department of Psychology and Social Relations, Harvard University; and Wallace E. Larimore affiliated with Computational Engineering, Inc., Woburn, Massachusetts.
:::Please see for yourself at: </nowiki> ] (]) 09:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
::::While Charles N. Alexander did receive his , at the time of the publication of this paper he was a faculty member of the "Department of Psychology" at Maharishi University of Management, then known as Maharishi International University.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Schmidt-Wilk |first1=Jane |title=A Biographical Sketch of Charles 'Skip' Alexander (1949–1998) |journal=Journal of Adult Development|date=2000 |volume=7 |issue=4 |pages=289–290 |doi=10.1023/A:1009584000035}}</ref> The claimed contemporaneous affiliation to Harvard is evidently a disingenuous one, made to give a (false) imprimatur of legitimacy to an otherwise obviously ridiculous research study, as the subsequent points out. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 10:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thanks, but back to the specific statistics approved by the non-TM peer review editors of the Journal of Conflict Resolution. We will see that cross correlation and transfer functions are used to determine and define causal notation, commonly used in the social sciences, as in A, Yogic Flying, causing B, reduction of warfare.
:::::Cross-correlation is the measurement of how well two independent signals resemble each other, a concept also known as cross-similarity. "'''cross-correlation''' is a ] of two series as a function of the displacement of one relative to the other... It is commonly used for searching a long signal for a shorter, known feature. It has applications in ]."]] Here the pattern is when the number of Yogic Flyers reaches a threshold, A, the number of war deaths B, decline. And when the number of Yogic Flyers, A, falls below the threshold, the war deaths, B, increase.
:::::A transfer function is a convenient way to represent a linear, time-invariant system in terms of its input-output relationship. "a transfer function of a system, sub-system, or component is a mathematical function that models the system's output for each possible input. "a '''transfer function''' (also known as '''system function''' or '''network function''') of a system, sub-system, or component is a ] that ] the system's output for each possible input. "]] Here the transfer function models the system's output (war deaths) for each possible input (number of Yogic Flyers).
:::::'''"Causal notation''' is ] used to express cause and effect.
:::::"In nature and human societies, many phenomena have causal relationships where one phenomenon A (a cause) impacts another phenomenon B (an effect). Establishing causal relationships is the aim of many scientific studies across fields ranging from ] and ] to ] and ]."]] Here as Harvard trained quantum physicist John Hagelin explains, when group EEG coherence reaches a threshold (from the technology of Yogic Flying), the effect is war deaths reduce.
:::::Here is a list of the 19 peer review studies using statistics like cross-correlation and transfer functions, approved by the non-TM peer review editors, as causal notation. Please check out these mainstream journals:
:::::Assimakis P., & Dillbeck, M. C. (1995). Time series analysis of improved quality of life in Canada:  Social change, collective consciousness, and the TM-Sidhi program. ''Psychological Reports'' ''76''(3), 1171–1193.
:::::Cavanaugh, K. L., & Dillbeck, M. C. (2017a). The contribution of proposed field effects of consciousness to the prevention of U.S. accidental fatalities: Theory and empirical tests. ''Journal of Consciousness Studies,'' ''24''(1–2), 53–86.
:::::Cavanaugh, K. L, & Dillbeck, M. C. (2017b). Field effects of consciousness and reduction in U.S. urban murder rates: Evaluation of a prospective quasi-experiment. ''Journal of Health and Environmental Research, 3''(3–1), 32–43.
:::::Davies, J. L., & Alexander, C. N. (2005).  Alleviating political violence through reducing collective tension: Impact assessment analysis of the Lebanon war. ''Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,'' ''17''(1), 285–338.
:::::Dillbeck, M. C. (1990). Test of a field theory of consciousness and social change: Time series analysis of participation in the TM-Sidhi program and reduction of violent death in the U.S. ''Social Indicators Research'' ''22''(4), 399–418.  
:::::Dillbeck, M. C., Banus, C. B., Polanzi, C., & Landrith III, G. S. (1988). Test of a field model of consciousness and social change: The Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program and decreased urban crime. ''The Journal of Mind and Behavior'' ''9''(4), 457–486.
:::::Dillbeck, M. C., & Cavanaugh K. L. (2016). Societal violence and collective consciousness: Reduction of U.S. homicide and urban violent crime rates. ''SAGE Open'', ''6''(2), 1–16.
:::::Dillbeck, M. C., & Cavanaugh K. L. (2017). Group practice of the Transcendental Meditation® and TM-Sidhi® program and reductions in infant mortality and drug-related death: A quasi-experimental analysis. ''SAGE Open'', ''7''(1), 1–16.
:::::Dillbeck, M. C., Cavanaugh, K. L., Glenn, T., Orme-Johnson, D. W., & Mittlefehldt, V. (1987).  Consciousness as a field: The Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program and changes in social indicators. ''The Journal of Mind and Behavior'' ''8''(1), 67–104.
:::::Dillbeck, M. C., Landrith III, G. S., & Orme-Johnson, D. W. (1981). The Transcendental Meditation program and crime rate change in a sample of forty-eight cities. ''Journal of Crime and Justice'' ''4'', 25–45.
:::::Fergusson L. C. (2016). Vedic science-based education, poverty removal and social wellbeing: A case history of Cambodia from 1980-2015. ''Journal of Indian Education'', ''31''(4), 16-45.
:::::Hagelin, J. S., Rainforth, M.V., Orme-Johnson, D. W., Cavanaugh, K. L., Alexander, C. N., Shatkin, S. F., … Ross, E. (1999). Effects of group practice of the Transcendental Meditation program on preventing violent crime in Washington, DC: Results of the National Demonstration Project, June–July 1993. ''Social Indicators Research,'' ''47''(2), 153–201.
:::::Hatchard, G., & Cavanaugh, K. L. (2017). The effect of coherent collective consciousness on national quality of life and economic performance indicators—An analysis of the IMD index of national competitive advantage. ''Journal of Health and Environmental Research, 3''(3–1), 16–31.
:::::Hatchard, G. D., Deans, A. J., Cavanaugh, K. L., & Orme-Johnson, D. W. (1996). The Maharishi Effect: A model for social improvement. Time series analysis of a phase transition to reduced crime in Merseyside metropolitan area. ''Psychology, Crime & Law,'' ''2''(3), 165–174.  
:::::Orme-Johnson, D. W., Dillbeck, M. C., Alexander, C. N., Chandler, H. M., & Cranson, R. W. (2003). Effects of large assemblies of participants in the Transcendental Meditation® and TM-Sidhi® program on reducing international conflict and terrorism. ''Journal of Offender Rehabilitation'', ''36''(1–4), 283–302.
:::::Orme-Johnson, D. W., Alexander, C. N., & Davies, J. L. (1990). The effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field: Reply to a methodological critique. ''Journal of Conflict Resolution, 34''(4), 756–768.
:::::Orme-Johnson, D. W., Alexander, C. N., Davies, J. L., Chandler, H. M., & Larimore, W. E. (1988). International peace project in the Middle East: The effect of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field. ''Journal of Conflict Resolution'' ''32''(4), 776–812.
:::::Orme-Johnson, D. W., Dillbeck, M. C., Alexander, C. N. (2003). Effects of large assemblies of participants in the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program on reducing international conflict and terrorism. ''Journal of Offender Rehabilitation'', ''36''(1–4), 283–302.
:::::Orme-Johnson, D. W., & Oates, R. M. (2009). A field-theoretic view of consciousness: Reply to critics. ''Journal of Scientific Exploration, 22''(3), 139–166. ] (]) 11:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
{{od|5}}
You made a claim about the authorship of the paper for which you advocate inclusion, to counter {{u|Hob Gadling}}'s pointing out, not inaccurately, that a paper emerging from such a {{tq|crackpot institution is not a ]}}. When your claim is shown to be false, you change the subject.
You've changed the subject to one which you apparently know even less about than accurately examining the authorship of a joke research study. The analysis "{{tq|commonly used in the social sciences}}" to determine causation from multiple variables is ], not cross-correlation. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 11:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::'''INTERSUBJECT EEG COHERENCE: IS CONSCIOUSNESS A FIELD?'''
::::::As Harvard trained quantum physicist John Hagelin explains inter subject EEG coherence at a distance explains the time-lagged correlation of warfare reduction in Lebanon, from a small group of TM experts. The rise of EEG coherence in the small group, radiates out and causes other people's (warfare combatants) EEG coherence to improve. Then the warring groups become more coherent and begin to cease aggression. Hagelin says this represents a theoretic field effect propagated by the unified field of physics. This Maharishi Effect has been replicated in numerous mainstream peer review journal studies in which the editors are not practicing TM. Never the less, these brilliant editors have endorsed the experimental designs and statistical notations for causality.
::::::Abstract: EEG coherence was measured '''''between''''' pairs of three different subjects during a one-hour period practice of the Transcendental Meditation (TM) program. Coherence between subjects was evaluated for two sequential fifteen minute periods. On six experimental days, these periods preceded and then coincided with a fifteen minute period during which '''''2500''''' students participated in the TM-Sidhi program at a course over lo00 miles away. After the course had ended coherence was evaluated on six control days.
::::::It was found that intersubject coherence was generally low, between '''0.35''' and '''0.4,''' with coherence in the alpha (8-12 Hz) and beta '''(16-20''' Hz) frequencies significantly higher than at other frequencies. On the experimental days, intersubject '''EEG''' coherence increased during the experimental period relative to the fifteen minute baseline period immediately preceding the experimental period. Coherence increased significantly from baseline to experimental periods '''on''' experimental days compared with control days (p = 0.02). This effect was particularly evident in the alpha and beta frequencies. The results reinforce previous sociological studies showing decreased social disorder in the vicinity of TM and TM-Sidhi participants and are discussed in terms of a field theoretic view of consciousness. </nowiki> ] (]) 11:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:Maharishi International University is a 501(c)3 nonprofit university accredited by the Higher Learning Commission, not a crackpot institution. The President of MIU is Dartmouth and Harvard trained quantum physicist John Hagelin. How many presidents of other universities can come close to his scientific achievements, I ask you, Sir? "In 1992, Hagelin received a ] from the North Dallas Chamber of Commerce "for his promising work in particle physics in the development of supersymmetric grand unified field theory"...During his time at CERN, SLAC and MUM, Hagelin worked on supersymmetric extensions of the standard model and grand unification theories. His work on the ] heterotic ] is considered one of the more successful unified field theories, or "theories of everything", and was highlighted in 1991 in a cover story in '']'' magazine.
:From 1979 to 1996, Hagelin published over 70 papers about ], ], ], ] and ], most of them in academic scientific journals. He co-authored a 1983 paper in '']'', "Weak symmetry breaking by radiative corrections in broken supergravity", that became one of the 103 most-cited articles in the physical sciences in 1983 and 1984. In a 2012 interview in ''Science Watch'', co-author Keith Olive said that his work for the 1984 study was one of the areas that had given him the greatest sense of accomplishment. A 1984 paper by Hagelin and John Ellis in '']'', "Supersymmetric relics from the big bang", had been cited over 500 times by 2007."]]
:"The most common form of regression analysis is ], in which one finds the line (or a more complex ]) that most closely fits the data according to a specific mathematical criterion."]]
:Following is a link to a diagram from the Journal of Conflict Resolution study that illustrates the proposed causal notation between A, the number of TM-Sidhi participants, and B, the improved quality of life index in Israel and reduction of conflict in Lebanon. You can see the 2 lines represent the data that illustrate the time lag that B always follows A, that former President of Dartmouth, John Kemeny, defined as the requirement for causality.
:https://uk.tm.org/documents/12132/34409314/image_maharishi_effect_5.png/ ] (]) 12:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
::: "The most common form of regression analysis is ], in which one finds the line (or a more complex ]) that most closely fits the data according to a specific mathematical criterion."]]
::: Here is a link illustrating 2 lines for their mathematical relation of TM-Sidhi Intervention Period and a time-lag to reduction of crime in DC. Again this is a chart illustrating causal notation defined by statistics.
::: 4,000 participants in the TM-Sidhi programme gathered in Washington DC for a six-week demonstration project in 1993. Predictions were lodged in advance with a 27-member independent review panel and advertised in the ''Washington Post.''(8) The results provide evidence of a dosage effect: when numbers participating increased, the effects were greater. Findings showed a 23.3% reduction in total violent crime during the project period, as well as increased approval ratings for President Clinton. In addition, accidents, emergency psychiatric calls, hospital trauma cases and complaints against police all decreased, while a quality of life index improved.(9,10)
::https://uk.tm.org/documents/12132/34409314/image_maharishi_effect_3.png/ ] (]) 12:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Following is a link to a diagram that illustrates the proposed causal relationship between US per capita consumption of ] and the ] in ]. And here's one showing the relationship between the number of google searches for "best schools" and the number of ]s in ]. You can, one hopes, see the problem. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 12:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thank you for your very intelligent insight with these 2 diagrams showing correlations that are not causal. It is clear you perceive the correlation between Yogic Flying and war reduction as non-causal. To you and your colleague Misplaced Pages editors, Yogic Flying causing war reduction is as ridiculous as the consumption of margarine causing the Maine divorce rate or visa versa.
:::::However, as I have tried to explain, the Maharishi Effect studies always involve statistical techniques, that show a time lag between line A and line B (as in the Lebanon study), indicating causality. One precedes the other. A always precedes B. This is the requirement for causality. "In nature and human societies, many phenomena have causal relationships where one phenomenon A (a cause) impacts another phenomenon B (an effect)." Cross correlations combined with transfer functions can prove your 2 diagrams are correlated but not related causally. Whereas in the TM-Lebanon study, cross correlations combined with transfer functions prove the 2 lines are correlated but one line (A) slightly leads the other line (B) showing TM experts cause warfare reduction. A leads B. This is not true in the correlation of consumption of margarine and the Maine divorce rate. Margarine consumption, A, does not lead the Maine divorce rate, B, or visa versa. For your diagrams, A does NOT lead B.
::::: Furthermore the Maharishi Effect studies have multiple replications in many parts of the world, all indicating causality by statistical techniques.
:::::Therefore Hagelin is proposing the Maharishi Effect is a law of nature propagated by the unified field. He is proposing the coherent brain is the basis of world peace. He is saying the Maharishi Effect is evidence of the unified field, which is usually researched only in particle accelerators and atomic labs. This is one reason the TM scientists are using physics functions like cross-correlations and transfer functions. It is a coherent proposal because as I cited above inter subject EEG coherence occurs across long distances. The source of the higher brain EEG synchrony is coming from the Yogic Flying group, as measured. ] (]) 13:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
::::: "The most common form of regression analysis is ], in which one finds the line (or a more complex ]) that most closely fits the data according to a specific mathematical criterion."]]
::::: Here is link showing rising lines for improvement of Norway's and Sweden's economies when the Maharishi Effect Threshold was achieved.
::::: Increased national economic strength and competitiveness in New Zealand and Norway. Scores on the Institute for Management Development (IMD) Index of National Competitive Advantage increased significantly for New Zealand and Norway when the number of people practising Transcendental Meditation exceeded 1% of the national population, in comparison to 44 other developed nations over a 7-year period. Subsidiary analysis and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) data confirmed that the observed economic improvements were unusually broad-based, sustained, and balanced in nature, with five years of high growth, low unemployment, and low inflation. For New Zealand, a cost-benefit analysis of coherence creation through Transcendental Meditation conservatively estimated the gain to the nation at $320 for every $1 invested in implementing the programme.(24
::::https://uk.tm.org/documents/12132/34409314/image_maharishi_effect_7.png/ ] (]) 12:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::Misplaced Pages is not a platform for the propagation of credulous horseshit claiming that arse-bouncing leads to world peace. ] (]) 14:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|cross correlations combined with transfer functions prove the 2 lines are correlated but one line (A) slightly leads the other line (B) showing TM experts cause warfare reduction. A leads B}} One leading another does not prove anything at all. The text you posted above does prove that you do not understand statistical regression. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 15:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You are right the above 2 posts with 2 lines for Norway (green) and New Zealand (blue), and 2 lines for actual DC crime (red) and the time series predicted crime without creating coherence group (green) DO NOT represent linear regression because they are not lines for independent and dependent variables. Thanks for pointing it out. My mistake sorry. I admit I am not an expert in linear regression.
:::::::However, the following is correct. What I meant by A leads B in the J of Conflict Resolution is the independent variable always precedes or leads the dependent variable. In a causal correlation B always follows A. The hypothesis that A is causing B is supported if variations in A are followed in time by correlated changes in B, whereas changes in B are not followed in time by correlated changes in A. "Cross-correlations and transfer functions indicated that the group had a leading relationship to change on the quality-of-life indicators, supporting a causal interpretation."
:::::::Therefore my original edit is correct and should be posted by you under Yogic Flying please:
:::::::The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1988, published "International Peace Project in the Middle East: The Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field." This study indicates a small group A of Transcendental Meditation peace experts practicing Yogic Flying (the √1% of the regional population), and thereby creating more EEG coherent brains, was time-lag correlated to B, reduced warfare in Lebanon. Cross-lagged panel correlation compares the synchronous correlation (the correlation between two variables at the same time) with the lagged correlations (the correlation of a variable with another variable at earlier and later times). The hypothesis that A is causing B is supported if variations in A are followed in time by correlated changes in B, whereas changes in B are not followed in time by correlated changes in A. "Cross-correlations and transfer functions indicated that the group had a leading relationship to change on the quality-of-life indicators, supporting a causal interpretation." </nowiki>
:::::::I wear a Christ cross and Mother Mary medallion but find no conflict in practicing TM. I would not believe the Maharishi Effect either if it were not for about 40 studies showing causality by cross-correlations, transfer functions, etc. My friend Father Thomas Keating, Abbot of St. Joseph’s Abbey, Spencer, MA, who practiced Transcendental Meditation (TM), and lived to be 95, believed in what Lord Christ said, “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you,” and, “Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven and all else shall be added unto thee.” Perhaps he could better explain the Maharishi Effect than I? ] (]) 20:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Misplaced Pages isn't the slightest bit interested in what religious symbols you wear, or what your personal religious beliefs are. You aren't going to be permitted to add this credulous horseshit to the article for the same reasons that all the previous promoters of said horseshit haven't been. Feel free to read the archives (linked at the top of this page) for past attempts, and for why they have not been accepted. Or alternatively, read ] - this is an essay, rather than policy, but it summarises nicely the opinions of Misplaced Pages contributors at large, and forms the background to the policies which prevent the article being used to promote arse-bouncing for world peace. ] (]) 21:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
<!---put comments above this line-->
{{talk-reflist}}

Latest revision as of 21:49, 14 August 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transcendental Meditation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
Other subpages
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Transcendental Meditation research was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 15 November 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Transcendental Meditation. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
TM-Sidhi program was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 14 November 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Transcendental Meditation. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
Good articlesTranscendental Meditation was nominated as a Philosophy and religion good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 31, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconSkepticism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconAlternative views Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion: New religious movements Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconTranscendental Meditation movement Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transcendental Meditation on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Transcendental Meditation movementWikipedia:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTemplate:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTranscendental Meditation movementWikiProject icon
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHinduism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconYoga Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga, Hatha yoga, Yoga as exercise and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YogaWikipedia:WikiProject YogaTemplate:WikiProject YogaYoga
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPsychology
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

The following Misplaced Pages contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

State of the research

I'm adding this so we can begin to look at potential updates to the research on TM. I had requested above we not make changes until Doc James is back on Misplaced Pages or 6 months to give him a chance to be part of this. I can't enforce this of course, but I am complying with this and hope others will too. I can add results from newer research if wanted.

Problematic sources


•Transcendental meditation for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (2017)

Louise HartleyAngelique MavrodarisNadine FlowersEdzard ErnstKaren Ree

Withdrawn

From the review. This Cochrane Review has been superseded. See 'Meditation for the prevention and management of heart disease'. The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.


•Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders (2006)

T Krisanaprakornkit 1, W Krisanaprakornkit, N Piyavhatkul, M Laopaiboon•"

  Limited to two studies and only one on TM (Review of one primary study). Authors consider the review limited in scope/more research needed.


• Meditation practices for health: state of the research. (2007)

Maria B Ospina, Kenneth Bond, Mohammad Karkhaneh, Lisa Tjosvold, Ben Vandermeer, Yuanyuan Liang, Liza Bialy, Nicola Hooton, Nina Buscemi, Donna M Dryden, and  Terry P Klassen

Archived Archived for historical reference only


More recent review/clinical updates


•Transcendental meditation for lowering blood pressure: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (2017)

SooLiang Ooi, Melissa Giovino, Sok Cheon Pak


•First-line Psychotherapies for Military-Related PTSD (2020) /Clinical update (2020)

Maria M. Steenkamp, PhD1; Brett T. Litz, PhD2,3; Charles R. Marmar, MD4

Could you point to the content

Could anyone point to the section of the review that specifically indicates this edit:

"There is no good evidence TM is of any use for reducing anxiety."

The review, author-conclusions states,"The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety,...

I see two conclusions in reference to TM: One, that a small number of studies doesn't indicate conclusions for mediation therapy in general. And two, that TM compares to other kinds of relaxation therapies.

We could say," A 2006 review indicates no conclusions could be drawn on meditation as therapy, including TM, because of too few studies investigated.

The date is pertinent as is the reason the review cannot draw conclusions.

I'd note per MEDRS,WP:MEDDATE that this source, at 2006, is outdated. There are more recent, pertinent, MEDRS compliant sources than a source that is 18 years old, with two studies and only one that pertains to the topic of this article, and that states, no conclusions could be drawn.

There is no evidence, per this review, that the small number of studies reviewed can lead to evidence that meditation therapy is effective in anxiety reduction. The review does not say is of no use. That is an extrapolation, and not accurate per the review we are looking at.

Littleolive oil (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

If the source says evidence does "not permit any conclusions to be drawn" that equates to "no good evidence" (in part because the default assumption is 'no effect'). Per WP:MEDSAY it's best not to include the gubbins about what the document type is. Cochrane reviews are exempt from WP:MEDDATE because the assumption is they update when the underlying evidence changes; this is set out in WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree and have updated the article to reflect this. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Add: per your comment on Cochrane: There is much research now on meditation techniques that indicate reduction of anxiety. This review is poor in terms of the reviews and also in date. Maybe take look at the state of the research in meditation techniques. A lot has changed in almost 20 years. The same is true of anything we might call Fringe. What was fringe 20 years ago may now be mainstream. That's the nature of science and research. Salk research on the polio vaccines would by our standards have been considered Fringe at one time, but now with research is no longer so. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Really? This is a page specifically about Transcendental Meditation. From a quick look the research scene is moribund (mindfulness is the new kid on the block). Which are the WP:BESTSOURCES on TM and anxiety? Bon courage (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I suggest you look deeper. And if you're in a looking mood you might want to check the Mindfulness article, a conglomerate of mindfulness related content rather than anything clearly delineated. The Effects of Meditation article is wracked with non- MEDRS sources and is clearly a mindfulness-dominated, POV article. I don't edit Misplaced Pages much anymore. Too Busy. And I don't try try to add new content or update this article in terms of research. There is a point where the fight isn't worth it. There is research being done on many meditation techniques from what I've seen. New kid might be a red flag, though; how much is MEDRS compliant? I am busy again for quite a while but I'll see about adding content on the state of the research on this article topic. It's not a competition. Meditation has become mainstream and there has to be room to accurately describe any forms that have verifiable, reliable sources. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Also: Health effects section is organized to indicate the history of the research given this meditation has a relatively long history in research and the article follows that history. So the date of the Cochran review should be added back in. Right now there’s a bit of a gaping hole where research date was removed. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


Reversion of date with out summary comment

Bon Courage. You've reverted with out any reason given. As I said here, the section is organized by date. You've removed the date. We do have another option. The review we are discussing has only one study on TM. Th authors conclude that with only that one study and whatever issues that study had no conclusions could be drawn. So per our own MEDRS guidelines this isn't a legitimate review since we are looking for replicated results. The whole thing should probably be removed. Further and again the review itself is outdated.

I have to wonder why you're insistent in removing the date and ignoring context. I refuse to get into some weird edit warring situation so if you honestly and with out bias feel it is appropriate to exclude the date when information has been ordered historically and since you also seem to have no reason to make that deletion I will leave the edit. I can't argue with what is illogical. If you do have a bias do you really think our readers are stupid enough to wonder about the bald statement now in the article which makes no logical sense. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

See above where I put "Cochrane reviews are exempt from WP:MEDDATE because the assumption is they update when the underlying evidence changes". So the assumption is what Cochrane says is current. I'd suggest you actually engage with points made. The rest of that section needs to be made compliant with WP:MEDSAY too. If you think that Cochrane rewiews are "not legitimate" that is not something Misplaced Pages can fix. Bon courage (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Ah well. You've sidestepped the points I made-red herring. You reverted the date of the review with out reason- no real edit summary given. And noting the information is not describing the source; this is supposedly a reliable source and this is just content. You've twisted WP:MEDSAY. Why are you afraid of adding a date? You've decided the research is moribund. I'm sure it is in this article because editors trot along and remove whatever doesn't suit their positions as you have done. You've worded the review inaccurately. I have no problem with adding whatever the review says but I do have problems with what appears to be illogical at best and biased at worst reading of the review. I'm no stranger to this kind of argument, and I know the only way too deal with it is to walk away. Should I add more research of which there is quite a bit, as the research on all forms of meditation increases yearly when this is what one deals with? You win! I don't deal with bullying or arguments that sidestep the issues. There's no point. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Olive, it is really impossible to respond meaningfully to that. Bon courage (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: Cochrane is not the only reliable;e source. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

What, for TM & anxiety specifically? It's not obvious that's the case. Bon courage (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sire what point you're making?
You're probably right. I really don't want to be here haggling over this article again. So my responses may not be complete. As perspective. I am a strict, maybe rigid, supporter of MEDRS. So, the subtle implication that I am supporting bias is frustrating. This article is not moribund, it's stable after years of contention. Let's see if I can make my position clear, as apparently I haven't. My perceptions.

The source in question is poor per MEDRS. It includes 2 studies, only one is about TM. MEDRS is meant to protect the reader from "Fringe" information- information that may with time become mainstream, but not now. As long as we have physicians who use Misplaced Pages for diagnosis( I'd head for the door if my physician did this), we have a responsibility to include only replicated studies/information. This review, such as it is, is not showing replicated information.

The source very clearly says,"The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety,..." the source does not make an overarching statement about anxiety and TM. This article is, however, making an over arching statement; we are misrepresenting the source in part by deliberately excluding context: The small number of studies does not allow any conclusions to be drawn. TM is comparable....

The section has been organized by date. WP:MEDSAY does not forbid basic information about the source being used. Using WP:MEDSAY as some kind of edit summary seems disingenuous to me. There is implied consensus in a years long stable article that you ignored in favor of your own edit leaving a bald, dateless inaccurate statement.

The MEDRS position would be to remove the source. There is no replication, and there was not enough information to draw any conclusions.

Finally, as an experienced editor you know that the only way I can deal further with this issue is to edit war and to enter the morass that follows that kind of contention. I attempted to compromise by agreeing with an edit you made, whether I bought the argument or not, but you went further with out agreement. I either walk away or am forced into an edit war. Is there frustration at being forced into such a position. Yes. But I don't care enough to engage in that kind of mess.

The article as it stands now is weaker than it was, if MEDRS is a legitimate standard. I think it is. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Finally, as an experienced editor you know that the only way I can deal further with this issue is to edit war ← not at all, you could raise a query at WT:MED. But if you are going to argue that a Cochrane review is poor or fringe you'd better have a strong case! It is hallmark of good systematic reviews that they exclude poor sources; poor reviews tend to include all sorts of crap. But surely the main point is that this is the ONLY review of TM/Anxiety in existence. Unless you know of others? Bon courage (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
You've sidestepped once again: Why did you remove a date? And, the content you support does not faithfully reflect the source.
No one suggested Cochrane in and of itself is not reliable. No source is valuable to us unless it specifically supports specific content and complies with our standards.
No one suggested the review is fringe.
I don't have to go to a notice board to know the content you are supporting does not reflect the source. Further NB are often a time sink, and the positions raised there are not binding on any article. Often they are a waste of time, of which I have little, in part because they are not binding
For starters, please look at the rest of the reviews in the section for TM and anxiety.
I've done what I can do here. Best wishes. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
A date is only needed if the information is time-bound in some way. Has the view on TM/Anxiety changed? Per WP:MEDSAY we should just deliver the knowledge payload without needless detail. The conclusion of the review says "The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders" which we summarize well (i.e. no good evidence to support). As to other sources: good tip. That Goyal source is comparatively recent (2014), but was badly mis-summarized. Bon courage (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Maharishi effect

"The square root of 1%" is 10%. I'm not sure what 0.00016% is in relation to 1%, but it's not the square root. 2600:1700:37E0:6890:7CCA:BDEB:A173:B2C8 (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

What they mean is: the square root of (one per cent (1%) of the population), not (the square root of one per cent (1%)) of the population. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I've rewritten that part of the article, omitting the 0.00016%. It appears that the global population was ~4 billion in 1974, 1% of that is 40 million, and √(40 million) is 6324.5553 (0.000158% of 4 billion) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 16:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Yogic Flying

The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1988, published "International Peace Project in the Middle East: The Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field." This study indicates a small group A of Transcendental Meditation peace experts practicing Yogic Flying (the √1% of the regional population), and thereby creating more EEG coherent brains, was time-lag correlated to B, reduced warfare in Lebanon. Cross-lagged panel correlation compares the synchronous correlation (the correlation between two variables at the same time) with the lagged correlations (the correlation of a variable with another variable at earlier and later times). The hypothesis that A is causing B is supported if variations in A are followed in time by correlated changes in B, whereas changes in B are not followed in time by correlated changes in A. "Cross-correlations and transfer functions indicated that the group had a leading relationship to change on the quality-of-life indicators, supporting a causal interpretation." Will M Davis (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Amazing bollocks eh! But why raise it? Bon courage (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Dear Editor,
Here is further evidence why you post my edit from the Journal of Conflict Resolution.
“A causal law of nature means no more and no less than that A is always followed by B (Kemeny, 1959),” said Dr. John G. Kemeny, former colleague of Einstein, and former President of Dartmouth College. This causal law satisfies the requirement made by non-TM peer review editors that TM causes the creation of a EEG coherent brain, increased IQ and intelligence scores, increased moral and ethical reasoning scores, more loving behavior, reduced school suspensions and expulsions, fewer hospitalizations in all disease categories, a longer average life span of about 15 years, relief from suicidal PTSD by veterans, and when only 1% of society practices TM, significantly decreased accident rates, decreased crime rates, and improved economic indicators like increased gross domestic product, and rising international stock markets.
Non-TM peer review editors confirm: The chance of error in the TM crime reduction studies, is only p < .0000000000000000001. In normal studies p < .01 means there is an excellent chance — 99 per cent — that the difference in outcomes would NOT be observed if the intervention had no benefit whatsoever. So p < .000000000000000001 means it is virtually certain, statistically, that the TM intervention caused the war deaths to fall 76%.
Non-TM peer review editors confirm: In TM crime reduction studies, other possible causes (weekends, holidays, weather, police procedures, government initiatives, etc.) are statistically controlled for.
Non-TM peer review editors confirm: TM peace intervention studies are announced (predicted) ahead of time (before the TM intervention).
To sum up, non-TM peer review editors confirm: Using the compound probability model , cross-lagged panel correlation (CLPC), Box-Jenkins ARIMA impact assessment, transfer function analyses, the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Liu’s linear transfer function (LTF), Ljung-Box Q statistic (showing joint probabilities of autocorrelations in residuals were insignificant, indicating statistical adequacies), robustness checks with “pseudovariables” (to rule out spurious effects), etc., 19 published studies indicate causality and rule out reverse causation for the TM crime reduction effect.https://istpp.org/news/2017_03-field-effects-of-consciousness-peer-reviewed-studies.html Will M Davis (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
That crackpot institution is not a reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
This Journal Of Conflict Resolution study on Yogic Flying time-lagged correlated to reduction of warfare includes authors Charles N. Alexander affiliated with Department of Psychology and Social Relations, Harvard University; and Wallace E. Larimore affiliated with Computational Engineering, Inc., Woburn, Massachusetts.
Please see for yourself at: Will M Davis (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
While Charles N. Alexander did receive his PhD from Harvard, at the time of the publication of this paper he was a faculty member of the "Department of Psychology" at Maharishi University of Management, then known as Maharishi International University. The claimed contemporaneous affiliation to Harvard is evidently a disingenuous one, made to give a (false) imprimatur of legitimacy to an otherwise obviously ridiculous research study, as the subsequent critique points out. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, but back to the specific statistics approved by the non-TM peer review editors of the Journal of Conflict Resolution. We will see that cross correlation and transfer functions are used to determine and define causal notation, commonly used in the social sciences, as in A, Yogic Flying, causing B, reduction of warfare.
Cross-correlation is the measurement of how well two independent signals resemble each other, a concept also known as cross-similarity. "cross-correlation is a measure of similarity of two series as a function of the displacement of one relative to the other... It is commonly used for searching a long signal for a shorter, known feature. It has applications in pattern recognition." Here the pattern is when the number of Yogic Flyers reaches a threshold, A, the number of war deaths B, decline. And when the number of Yogic Flyers, A, falls below the threshold, the war deaths, B, increase.
A transfer function is a convenient way to represent a linear, time-invariant system in terms of its input-output relationship. "a transfer function of a system, sub-system, or component is a mathematical function that models the system's output for each possible input. "a transfer function (also known as system function or network function) of a system, sub-system, or component is a mathematical function that models the system's output for each possible input. " Here the transfer function models the system's output (war deaths) for each possible input (number of Yogic Flyers).
"Causal notation is notation used to express cause and effect.
"In nature and human societies, many phenomena have causal relationships where one phenomenon A (a cause) impacts another phenomenon B (an effect). Establishing causal relationships is the aim of many scientific studies across fields ranging from biology and physics to social sciences and economics." Here as Harvard trained quantum physicist John Hagelin explains, when group EEG coherence reaches a threshold (from the technology of Yogic Flying), the effect is war deaths reduce.
Here is a list of the 19 peer review studies using statistics like cross-correlation and transfer functions, approved by the non-TM peer review editors, as causal notation. Please check out these mainstream journals:
Assimakis P., & Dillbeck, M. C. (1995). Time series analysis of improved quality of life in Canada:  Social change, collective consciousness, and the TM-Sidhi program. Psychological Reports 76(3), 1171–1193.
Cavanaugh, K. L., & Dillbeck, M. C. (2017a). The contribution of proposed field effects of consciousness to the prevention of U.S. accidental fatalities: Theory and empirical tests. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 24(1–2), 53–86.
Cavanaugh, K. L, & Dillbeck, M. C. (2017b). Field effects of consciousness and reduction in U.S. urban murder rates: Evaluation of a prospective quasi-experiment. Journal of Health and Environmental Research, 3(3–1), 32–43.
Davies, J. L., & Alexander, C. N. (2005).  Alleviating political violence through reducing collective tension: Impact assessment analysis of the Lebanon war. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 17(1), 285–338.
Dillbeck, M. C. (1990). Test of a field theory of consciousness and social change: Time series analysis of participation in the TM-Sidhi program and reduction of violent death in the U.S. Social Indicators Research 22(4), 399–418.  
Dillbeck, M. C., Banus, C. B., Polanzi, C., & Landrith III, G. S. (1988). Test of a field model of consciousness and social change: The Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program and decreased urban crime. The Journal of Mind and Behavior 9(4), 457–486.
Dillbeck, M. C., & Cavanaugh K. L. (2016). Societal violence and collective consciousness: Reduction of U.S. homicide and urban violent crime rates. SAGE Open, 6(2), 1–16.
Dillbeck, M. C., & Cavanaugh K. L. (2017). Group practice of the Transcendental Meditation® and TM-Sidhi® program and reductions in infant mortality and drug-related death: A quasi-experimental analysis. SAGE Open, 7(1), 1–16.
Dillbeck, M. C., Cavanaugh, K. L., Glenn, T., Orme-Johnson, D. W., & Mittlefehldt, V. (1987).  Consciousness as a field: The Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program and changes in social indicators. The Journal of Mind and Behavior 8(1), 67–104.
Dillbeck, M. C., Landrith III, G. S., & Orme-Johnson, D. W. (1981). The Transcendental Meditation program and crime rate change in a sample of forty-eight cities. Journal of Crime and Justice 4, 25–45.
Fergusson L. C. (2016). Vedic science-based education, poverty removal and social wellbeing: A case history of Cambodia from 1980-2015. Journal of Indian Education, 31(4), 16-45.
Hagelin, J. S., Rainforth, M.V., Orme-Johnson, D. W., Cavanaugh, K. L., Alexander, C. N., Shatkin, S. F., … Ross, E. (1999). Effects of group practice of the Transcendental Meditation program on preventing violent crime in Washington, DC: Results of the National Demonstration Project, June–July 1993. Social Indicators Research, 47(2), 153–201.
Hatchard, G., & Cavanaugh, K. L. (2017). The effect of coherent collective consciousness on national quality of life and economic performance indicators—An analysis of the IMD index of national competitive advantage. Journal of Health and Environmental Research, 3(3–1), 16–31.
Hatchard, G. D., Deans, A. J., Cavanaugh, K. L., & Orme-Johnson, D. W. (1996). The Maharishi Effect: A model for social improvement. Time series analysis of a phase transition to reduced crime in Merseyside metropolitan area. Psychology, Crime & Law, 2(3), 165–174.  
Orme-Johnson, D. W., Dillbeck, M. C., Alexander, C. N., Chandler, H. M., & Cranson, R. W. (2003). Effects of large assemblies of participants in the Transcendental Meditation® and TM-Sidhi® program on reducing international conflict and terrorism. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 36(1–4), 283–302.
Orme-Johnson, D. W., Alexander, C. N., & Davies, J. L. (1990). The effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field: Reply to a methodological critique. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 34(4), 756–768.
Orme-Johnson, D. W., Alexander, C. N., Davies, J. L., Chandler, H. M., & Larimore, W. E. (1988). International peace project in the Middle East: The effect of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field. Journal of Conflict Resolution 32(4), 776–812.
Orme-Johnson, D. W., Dillbeck, M. C., Alexander, C. N. (2003). Effects of large assemblies of participants in the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program on reducing international conflict and terrorism. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 36(1–4), 283–302.
Orme-Johnson, D. W., & Oates, R. M. (2009). A field-theoretic view of consciousness: Reply to critics. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 22(3), 139–166. Will M Davis (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You made a claim about the authorship of the paper for which you advocate inclusion, to counter Hob Gadling's pointing out, not inaccurately, that a paper emerging from such a crackpot institution is not a reliable source. When your claim is shown to be false, you change the subject. You've changed the subject to one which you apparently know even less about than accurately examining the authorship of a joke research study. The analysis "commonly used in the social sciences" to determine causation from multiple variables is regression analysis, not cross-correlation. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

INTERSUBJECT EEG COHERENCE: IS CONSCIOUSNESS A FIELD?
As Harvard trained quantum physicist John Hagelin explains inter subject EEG coherence at a distance explains the time-lagged correlation of warfare reduction in Lebanon, from a small group of TM experts. The rise of EEG coherence in the small group, radiates out and causes other people's (warfare combatants) EEG coherence to improve. Then the warring groups become more coherent and begin to cease aggression. Hagelin says this represents a theoretic field effect propagated by the unified field of physics. This Maharishi Effect has been replicated in numerous mainstream peer review journal studies in which the editors are not practicing TM. Never the less, these brilliant editors have endorsed the experimental designs and statistical notations for causality.
Abstract: EEG coherence was measured between pairs of three different subjects during a one-hour period practice of the Transcendental Meditation (TM) program. Coherence between subjects was evaluated for two sequential fifteen minute periods. On six experimental days, these periods preceded and then coincided with a fifteen minute period during which 2500 students participated in the TM-Sidhi program at a course over lo00 miles away. After the course had ended coherence was evaluated on six control days.
It was found that intersubject coherence was generally low, between 0.35 and 0.4, with coherence in the alpha (8-12 Hz) and beta (16-20 Hz) frequencies significantly higher than at other frequencies. On the experimental days, intersubject EEG coherence increased during the experimental period relative to the fifteen minute baseline period immediately preceding the experimental period. Coherence increased significantly from baseline to experimental periods on experimental days compared with control days (p = 0.02). This effect was particularly evident in the alpha and beta frequencies. The results reinforce previous sociological studies showing decreased social disorder in the vicinity of TM and TM-Sidhi participants and are discussed in terms of a field theoretic view of consciousness. Will M Davis (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Maharishi International University is a 501(c)3 nonprofit university accredited by the Higher Learning Commission, not a crackpot institution. The President of MIU is Dartmouth and Harvard trained quantum physicist John Hagelin. How many presidents of other universities can come close to his scientific achievements, I ask you, Sir? "In 1992, Hagelin received a Kilby International Award from the North Dallas Chamber of Commerce "for his promising work in particle physics in the development of supersymmetric grand unified field theory"...During his time at CERN, SLAC and MUM, Hagelin worked on supersymmetric extensions of the standard model and grand unification theories. His work on the flipped SU(5) heterotic superstring theory is considered one of the more successful unified field theories, or "theories of everything", and was highlighted in 1991 in a cover story in Discover magazine.
From 1979 to 1996, Hagelin published over 70 papers about particle physics, electroweak unification, grand unification, supersymmetry and cosmology, most of them in academic scientific journals. He co-authored a 1983 paper in Physics Letters B, "Weak symmetry breaking by radiative corrections in broken supergravity", that became one of the 103 most-cited articles in the physical sciences in 1983 and 1984. In a 2012 interview in Science Watch, co-author Keith Olive said that his work for the 1984 study was one of the areas that had given him the greatest sense of accomplishment. A 1984 paper by Hagelin and John Ellis in Nuclear Physics B, "Supersymmetric relics from the big bang", had been cited over 500 times by 2007."
"The most common form of regression analysis is linear regression, in which one finds the line (or a more complex linear combination) that most closely fits the data according to a specific mathematical criterion."
Following is a link to a diagram from the Journal of Conflict Resolution study that illustrates the proposed causal notation between A, the number of TM-Sidhi participants, and B, the improved quality of life index in Israel and reduction of conflict in Lebanon. You can see the 2 lines represent the data that illustrate the time lag that B always follows A, that former President of Dartmouth, John Kemeny, defined as the requirement for causality.
https://uk.tm.org/documents/12132/34409314/image_maharishi_effect_5.png/ Will M Davis (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
"The most common form of regression analysis is linear regression, in which one finds the line (or a more complex linear combination) that most closely fits the data according to a specific mathematical criterion."
Here is a link illustrating 2 lines for their mathematical relation of TM-Sidhi Intervention Period and a time-lag to reduction of crime in DC. Again this is a chart illustrating causal notation defined by statistics.
4,000 participants in the TM-Sidhi programme gathered in Washington DC for a six-week demonstration project in 1993. Predictions were lodged in advance with a 27-member independent review panel and advertised in the Washington Post.(8) The results provide evidence of a dosage effect: when numbers participating increased, the effects were greater. Findings showed a 23.3% reduction in total violent crime during the project period, as well as increased approval ratings for President Clinton. In addition, accidents, emergency psychiatric calls, hospital trauma cases and complaints against police all decreased, while a quality of life index improved.(9,10)
https://uk.tm.org/documents/12132/34409314/image_maharishi_effect_3.png/ Will M Davis (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Following is a link to a diagram that illustrates the proposed causal relationship between US per capita consumption of margarine and the divorce rate in Maine. And here's one showing the relationship between the number of google searches for "best schools" and the number of security guards in Pennsylvania. You can, one hopes, see the problem. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your very intelligent insight with these 2 diagrams showing correlations that are not causal. It is clear you perceive the correlation between Yogic Flying and war reduction as non-causal. To you and your colleague Misplaced Pages editors, Yogic Flying causing war reduction is as ridiculous as the consumption of margarine causing the Maine divorce rate or visa versa.
However, as I have tried to explain, the Maharishi Effect studies always involve statistical techniques, that show a time lag between line A and line B (as in the Lebanon study), indicating causality. One precedes the other. A always precedes B. This is the requirement for causality. "In nature and human societies, many phenomena have causal relationships where one phenomenon A (a cause) impacts another phenomenon B (an effect)." Cross correlations combined with transfer functions can prove your 2 diagrams are correlated but not related causally. Whereas in the TM-Lebanon study, cross correlations combined with transfer functions prove the 2 lines are correlated but one line (A) slightly leads the other line (B) showing TM experts cause warfare reduction. A leads B. This is not true in the correlation of consumption of margarine and the Maine divorce rate. Margarine consumption, A, does not lead the Maine divorce rate, B, or visa versa. For your diagrams, A does NOT lead B.
Furthermore the Maharishi Effect studies have multiple replications in many parts of the world, all indicating causality by statistical techniques.
Therefore Hagelin is proposing the Maharishi Effect is a law of nature propagated by the unified field. He is proposing the coherent brain is the basis of world peace. He is saying the Maharishi Effect is evidence of the unified field, which is usually researched only in particle accelerators and atomic labs. This is one reason the TM scientists are using physics functions like cross-correlations and transfer functions. It is a coherent proposal because as I cited above inter subject EEG coherence occurs across long distances. The source of the higher brain EEG synchrony is coming from the Yogic Flying group, as measured. Will M Davis (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
"The most common form of regression analysis is linear regression, in which one finds the line (or a more complex linear combination) that most closely fits the data according to a specific mathematical criterion."
Here is link showing rising lines for improvement of Norway's and Sweden's economies when the Maharishi Effect Threshold was achieved.
Increased national economic strength and competitiveness in New Zealand and Norway. Scores on the Institute for Management Development (IMD) Index of National Competitive Advantage increased significantly for New Zealand and Norway when the number of people practising Transcendental Meditation exceeded 1% of the national population, in comparison to 44 other developed nations over a 7-year period. Subsidiary analysis and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) data confirmed that the observed economic improvements were unusually broad-based, sustained, and balanced in nature, with five years of high growth, low unemployment, and low inflation. For New Zealand, a cost-benefit analysis of coherence creation through Transcendental Meditation conservatively estimated the gain to the nation at $320 for every $1 invested in implementing the programme.(24
https://uk.tm.org/documents/12132/34409314/image_maharishi_effect_7.png/ Will M Davis (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a platform for the propagation of credulous horseshit claiming that arse-bouncing leads to world peace. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
cross correlations combined with transfer functions prove the 2 lines are correlated but one line (A) slightly leads the other line (B) showing TM experts cause warfare reduction. A leads B One leading another does not prove anything at all. The text you posted above does prove that you do not understand statistical regression. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
You are right the above 2 posts with 2 lines for Norway (green) and New Zealand (blue), and 2 lines for actual DC crime (red) and the time series predicted crime without creating coherence group (green) DO NOT represent linear regression because they are not lines for independent and dependent variables. Thanks for pointing it out. My mistake sorry. I admit I am not an expert in linear regression.
However, the following is correct. What I meant by A leads B in the J of Conflict Resolution is the independent variable always precedes or leads the dependent variable. In a causal correlation B always follows A. The hypothesis that A is causing B is supported if variations in A are followed in time by correlated changes in B, whereas changes in B are not followed in time by correlated changes in A. "Cross-correlations and transfer functions indicated that the group had a leading relationship to change on the quality-of-life indicators, supporting a causal interpretation."
Therefore my original edit is correct and should be posted by you under Yogic Flying please:
The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1988, published "International Peace Project in the Middle East: The Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field." This study indicates a small group A of Transcendental Meditation peace experts practicing Yogic Flying (the √1% of the regional population), and thereby creating more EEG coherent brains, was time-lag correlated to B, reduced warfare in Lebanon. Cross-lagged panel correlation compares the synchronous correlation (the correlation between two variables at the same time) with the lagged correlations (the correlation of a variable with another variable at earlier and later times). The hypothesis that A is causing B is supported if variations in A are followed in time by correlated changes in B, whereas changes in B are not followed in time by correlated changes in A. "Cross-correlations and transfer functions indicated that the group had a leading relationship to change on the quality-of-life indicators, supporting a causal interpretation."
I wear a Christ cross and Mother Mary medallion but find no conflict in practicing TM. I would not believe the Maharishi Effect either if it were not for about 40 studies showing causality by cross-correlations, transfer functions, etc. My friend Father Thomas Keating, Abbot of St. Joseph’s Abbey, Spencer, MA, who practiced Transcendental Meditation (TM), and lived to be 95, believed in what Lord Christ said, “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you,” and, “Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven and all else shall be added unto thee.” Perhaps he could better explain the Maharishi Effect than I? Will M Davis (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages isn't the slightest bit interested in what religious symbols you wear, or what your personal religious beliefs are. You aren't going to be permitted to add this credulous horseshit to the article for the same reasons that all the previous promoters of said horseshit haven't been. Feel free to read the archives (linked at the top of this page) for past attempts, and for why they have not been accepted. Or alternatively, read Misplaced Pages:Lunatic charlatans - this is an essay, rather than policy, but it summarises nicely the opinions of Misplaced Pages contributors at large, and forms the background to the policies which prevent the article being used to promote arse-bouncing for world peace. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. Schmidt-Wilk, Jane (2000). "A Biographical Sketch of Charles 'Skip' Alexander (1949–1998)". Journal of Adult Development. 7 (4): 289–290. doi:10.1023/A:1009584000035.
Categories:
Talk:Transcendental Meditation: Difference between revisions Add topic